Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL

Ordered,
That in the case of the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill, Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords amendments accordingly considered

Clause 57

NOISE INSULATION

Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 44, line 26, at end insert—
(c) The following provisions of this section are without prejudice to this subsection".

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: after "subsection" insert—
and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, an application for a grant to which provision is required to be made by this subsection shall not be invalid by reason of the fact that it is not made on the date specified in accordance with subsection (4)(d) below if it is made during a period beginning with the opening to the public of the part of the LRT system to which the application relates and ending five years thereafter".

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Regional Development

Mr. Bates: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the regional development organisations.

Mrs. Lait: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the regional development organisations.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Heseltine): The regional development organisations make a significant contribution to the overall success of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment. In 1992–93, the last year for which figures are available, they were significantly involved in attracting 54 investment projects by foreign firms to the United Kingdom, involving some 6,000 jobs.
The work of the regional development organisations will be further strengthened by my recent appointment of a senior business man as head of the Invest in Britain Bureau.

Mr. Bates: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in thanking the Northern Development Company in particular, which has succeeded in attracting some £3.5 billion-worth of inward investment to the north-east, creating or safeguarding some 35,000 jobs? Will he compare its successful efforts at industrial regeneration with the record of the National Enterprise Board, which made 100 investments, 35 of which went bust and 37 were sold at a loss to the taxpayer?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is wise to remind the House of the disastrous experience of the National Enterprise Board, but he is also right to point out that the north-east has been particularly successful in attracting inward investment to this country, a significant amount of which I have had the privilege of seeing.

Mrs. Lait: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the north-east shares with areas in the south-east the problem of endemic long-term unemployment. When he considers the regional development map in due course, will he bear in mind the fact that the causes of that regional endemic unemployment will not have been solved because we will not have the new roads? Will he ensure that the Department is generous in the timing of a new map?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are obliged to review the map from time to time and we will do so, but against a statistically accurate background. I know that my hon. Friend will share my pleasure at seeing the overall levels of unemployment now falling consistently month by month.

Mr. Wigley: Does the President of the Board accept that, despite the recent difficulties of the Welsh Development Agency, in the period from 1976 until now it has performed a remarkable job? It now needs every support, not only from the Welsh Office but from the Minister's Department and the Treasury, to maximise inward investment into Wales and the UK generally and to help self-regenerative growth within the area?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the great success that the Welsh Development Agency has had, but he will remember that it has enjoyed that success against the background of fiscal policies that have made this country extremely attractive to inward investment. The most constructive thing that he and his party could do is support the Government's determination to avoid the on-costs of the social chapter, which would undermine Welsh competitiveness.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the President of the Board of Trade acknowledge the good work done by the Yorkshire and Humberside development corporation, particularly in south Humberside, where he will recall opening the Kimberly-Clark plant? Will he guarantee that, whatever boundary changes the local government review comes up with, the Yorkshire and Humberside development corporation will still have responsibility for attracting inward investment to south Humberside and Scunthorpe, where it has had so many successes?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the considerable success that Government policy has had in attracting inward investment to this country. I assure him that we will continue with those policies. Indeed, we are increasing our efforts to support them.

Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of overseas companies that have decided in the past six months to invest in Devon and Cornwall has risen sharply compared to previous years, thanks largely to the efforts of the Devon and Cornwall development bureau? Does he agree, however, that that is not just a reflection of growing confidence in the UK economy but a new recognition that the south-west, with its skilled work force and improving communications, is now firmly open for business?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a remarkable and eloquent point on behalf of the south-west. I have visited his part of the country recently. The transformation that has taken place since I was last a Member of Parliament for that area is remarkable.

Mr. Beggs: The President of the Board of Trade will be aware of the excellent work done by Scottish Enterprise. Recently, jointly with a constituent of mine in manufacturing, it had identified major possible small hydro projects in Vietnam. Unfortunately, no overseas aid was available. Would the President welcome greater influence over the distribution of overseas aid in his Department?

Mr. Heseltine: I should certainly welcome any increased influence if it were available, but that does not mean to say that I shall be allowed to get it.

Mr. Bell: We welcome the presence of the President of the Board of Trade today and congratulate him on keeping his post. It must be the first Government reshuffle that prepares for opposition.
However, the Opposition heard nothing but smugness and self-satisfaction from the Dispatch Box in response to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). The hon. Member could have referred to the inward investment of Dupont on Teesside. It bought the ICI fibre business to close it down and move to France, and 520 jobs were lost. Eight hundred and twenty jobs were lost at Pontypool by the same firm. When we speak about the north-east of England, Swan Hunter has just been, or will be, closed down. How is that for smugness and self-satisfaction?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is playing the traditional Labour party game—singling out an example of something that has gone wrong in order to generalise, to the maximum damage of the British economy. Unemployment is decreasing in the north-east, as it is in the economy at large. Instead of trying to find ways of explaining that away, the hon. Member should get to his feet and praise it.

Gas Interconnector

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on constructing an interconnector for gas between Britain and the continent of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): We want freer trade in gas throughout Europe. I believe that a

private sector gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and Belgium will play a major role in achieving that.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the private sector is keen to finance its own pipeline to the continent? Does he agree that it is about time that the European Community moved towards a single market on energy?

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no suggestion of Government funding contributing to the building of the interconnector, although I recently met my Belgian counterpart to begin negotiations on a treaty between the UK and Belgium to cover the interconnector.
As for my hon. Friend's comments about the European Commission, I do think that the Union needs to move towards a single market in energy, in the same way as we have moved towards a single market in goods and services.

Mr. Salmond: If the Minister believes in a free market in gas throughout Europe, why is his Department preventing other Norwegian fields from going through the Frigg delivery system and landing at St. Fergus in my constituency? Does not that reveal an inconsistency in his approach, or is he just against St. Fergus as a landfall point for gas?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am committed to the continuation of St. Fergus as a major terminal for gas, whether it be from Norway or from other sources. I recently had representations from the chairman of the Banff and Buchan Conservative association, urging that Britannia gas should arrive at St. Fergus.
As for the discussions that are going on with the Norwegians, those are difficult matters, which are important for the future of the UK gas industry, and doubtless we shall resume the discussions when we hear next from the Norwegians.

Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the introduction of full competition in the gas supplied to the domestic consumer could result in a drop in prices of about 10 or 11 per cent. to them? Will he therefore introduce a full liberalisation of the gas market to domestic consumers, and allow independent companies to come in and compete with British Gas?

Mr. Eggar: I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced that legislation would be brought forward, subject to the availability of parliamentary time, in order to introduce competition.

Mr. O'Neill: I want to return to the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on the subject of Norwegian gas. Are we going to have to wait until Norway is in the European Community before the matter is resolved? Will it be resolved on the basis of Britain being in a minority of one once again?

Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman—I am not surprised at the Scottish nationalist Member. We are in negotiations with the Norwegians and want to support Britain's best interests. I find it extraordinary that


the official Opposition should urge a collapse on our part to agree to whatever requests the Norwegians make. That is not looking after Britain's best interests.

Steel Industry

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the British Iron and Steel Producers Association to discuss prospects for the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the British Iron and Steel Producers Association. I spoke after its annual general meeting on 3 December last year, since when I have had a number of meetings with the industry and my officials keep in regular contact with the association.

Mrs. Jackson: Is the Minister aware that the cost of electricity for major energy users using the electricity pooled price system continues to place a great burden on the major steel industry in this country? Will he respond to the report that he received from Stephen Littlechild on the subject only yesterday or the day before, and say today that he will allow trading outside the pool system for major energy users such as steel workers in my constituency, so that they can carry on making the best special steel in Europe for many years to come?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that those are matters for the director general, who is reviewing the position. They are issues which my officials and I regularly discuss with the association to ensure that we and, if necessary, the director general are fully aware of its views.

Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can in government and Europe to get rid of the remaining subsidies that so many European firms still give to their steel industries and which damage the British economy so much? Will he continue to press for what is probably one of the most important European issues—to get the market in steel operating on a fair basis?

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend that achieving a level playing field and getting rid of state subsidies is a prime objective and the best way to ensure that efficient British producers can benefit from a single market. It is an objective to which I have given a great deal of time and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to press for progress. I think that progress is being made, albeit more slowly than we should like.

Electricity Supply Industry

Mr. Loyden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the regulation of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Eggar: Effective regulation, together with the introduction of competition, is bringing considerable benefits to consumers. Domestic customers, for example, have seen a 7 per cent. reduction in prices, in real terms, over the past two financial years.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that about £12 million has been awarded by themselves to

the chairmen of the electricity supply industry? Does that show that the regulatory bodies act in the interests of the consumer or in the interests of the electricity companies?

Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's view on salary increases clear. On the subject of the future of electricity prices, the Director General of Electricity Supply is currently conducting a review of the distribution price mechanism. I understand that he is likely to report within the next two or three weeks.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that it is an expressed view of the Electricity Consumers Council that the benefits of privatisation have been passed on to the shareholders, but not in full to the consumers and that, in its view, electricity prices are at least 5 per cent. too high? What action will the Government take to ensure that the benefits that they claim come from privatisation are passed to consumers in the form of lower prices?

Mr. Eggar: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. It is slightly unfortunate that he did not listen to my initial response. I made it clear that there had been a 7 per cent. reduction in real terms in prices for domestic consumers over the past two years as a direct result of privatisation.

Mr. Robin Cook: What will the Minister do when he is faced with a proposal from the electricity companies to sell the national grid? Does he remember that when the Government sold all the electricity companies, they made £5 billion? Is not he surprised that the electricity companies now expect to get back £4 billion of that just by selling the national grid? Does not that suggest that the price of privatisation was a bad bargain? Will he demand that the public, who built the national grid, get some of the money, or will the electricity companies make a windfall profit at the expense of a public already thoroughly fed up with paying for bigger boardroom salaries?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is so blinded by socialist dogma that he will not recognise the considerable benefit to domestic consumers as a direct result of privatisation. There has been a 7 per cent. reduction in electricity prices in real terms and there are likely to be further reductions. There have also been significant reductions for all industrial consumers other than the very large ones.
On the hon. Gentleman's initial question about the national grid, unlike him I shall listen to the proposals made by the regional electricity companies, if they make any. I do not make up my mind until I have heard the facts.

Gas Consumers Council

Mr. Cummings: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation he has made of the impact of the reduction in the Gas Consumers Council's budget in the months of April, May and June on its safety advisory services to senior citizens and others.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of how the reduction in the Gas Consumers Council's budget will affect its service to (a) people with disabilities and (b) others.

Mr. Eggar: The Gas Consumers Council has indicated that it will continue to be able to carry out all its functions including services to the disabled and to senior citizens.

Mr. Cummings: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the cuts, the Gas Consumers Council will not be able to afford to reprint its leaflets on gas safety? That is happening at a time when many elderly people have defective gas appliances. Is it not both a folly and a disgrace to remove those resources from the leading organisation responsible for informing customers of gas safety?

Mr. Eggar: I am not aware of any proposals by the GCC to cut back on its literature, whether relating to safety or otherwise—

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It is a disgrace.

Mr. Eggar: Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) really suggesting that the Government should not seek in any way to control expenditure on the GCC? Is it alone to be exempted from expenditure restrictions?

Mr. McKelvey: Does not the Minister understand that, of the £209,000 savings, only £2,000 will be saved by the Department of Trade and Industry? In fact, we have spent that. £2,000 by asking these two questions. The other £207,000 will be savings for the gas people. Can we have a guarantee that that £207,000 will not go into the hip pocket of the chairman of British Gas?

Mr. Eggar: At the end of the day, additional costs to British Gas effectively mean that consumers have to pay more for their gas. The Government have a duty to restrict expenditure, in an equal way, across the consumer bodies as a whole. There is no reason why the GCC should be exempted from that.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why does not the Minister simply tell the House the truth? If he speaks to Captain Ian Powe, who heads the GCC—which the hon. Gentleman obviously has not done—Captain Powe will tell him that he is no longer able to reproduce the key gas safety leaflets for tenants, senior citizens and others advising them about the perils of gas and of not maintaining gas appliances.
Why will not the Minister be frank with the House and say that the Government have cut the GCC's budget by £209,000, that they have done so because the Treasury demanded it, that consumers will get a poorer deal and that old-age pensioners, tenants and others with gas supplies will now get a far poorer service? Why does not the hon. Gentleman tell us the truth for once?

Mr. Eggar: Scaremongering may come naturally to the hon. Gentleman, but it does not make a sensible contribution to an important discussion. My understanding is that the Gas Consumer Council is fully confident of being able to carry out all its functions.

Mr. Cummings: Not true.

Mr. Eggar: It is true. But, like other consumer councils, it is having to absorb a small reduction in its budget. It is right that it should have to restrict public expenditure as do similar bodies.

Local Development, Cumbria

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to discuss with representatives of the West Cumbria development agency the future of local development.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans to meet West Cumbrian representatives in the near future. Officials in the Government office for the north-west are in regular and close contact with the West Cumbria development agency. As the Minister with responsibility for the north-west, I go there frequently and I should be happy to see those representatives if the hon. Gentleman were to request it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I raise the issue that I have raised repeatedly during the past 12 months in the House —the empty 500,000 sq ft former Volvo factory in Workington. What is happening in the Department? What efforts are currently being made to try to find either a tenant or a new owner on the international market of footloose industry that is interested in coming to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have shown willingness to help Cumbria in many respects in recent years. During the past three years, £12 million has been invested in projects designed to provide improved facilities for business and commerce alone, and that is part of a continuing programme spear-headed by English Partnerships.
Current Government investment in Cumbria for economic development runs at some £65 million per annum. Of course I hope that the site will be utilised in due course. With the economy on the up, I am sure that the prospects for that part of the region are much better than they have been for many years.

Sub-post Offices

Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about security of sub-post offices. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Security in sub-post offices is an operational matter for the Post Office in conjunction with the individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who own them. The Post Office takes security throughout the post office network very seriously and keeps it under constant review.

Mrs. Roche: Given the alarming number of attacks on the staff of sub-post offices, including the recent tragic murder of a sub-postmaster on the Archway road in my constituency, will the Minister give an assurance that he will have urgent talks with the Post Office about the funding of vital security measures such as alarm systems and closed circuit television?

Mr. McLoughlin: The whole House will wish me to express condolences to the family of the hon. Lady's constituent who was murdered. The Post Office pays for safes, alarm systems, including panic buttons, and counter security screens. The cost of additional security measures


that are deemed necessary is a matter for the individual post office. I will closely consider what the hon. Lady has said in this case, but the facts are still under investigation.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a serious matter, and that in my constituency a few years ago a sub-postmistress was murdered in most tragic circumstances? Is my hon. Friend further aware that many attacks are carried out, particularly in remote areas, by people who have first committed car crimes? In one case, thieves towed away a safe using an agricultural vehicle. Will my hon. Friend tell the Home Office that we expect a much more robust attitude from it to the whole question of car crime?

Mr. McLoughlin: I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, have taken a number of measures which show their determination to crack down on crime and those who commit it.

Mr. Hain: In respect of the long-term security in the sub-post office network, the Minister will be aware that I am opposed to the privatisation proposals, which we will fight every inch of the way, but may I seriously appeal to him not to break up the Post Office? If the Government are determined to privatise it, may I urge them to keep the Post Office together, as every other post office in the world has been kept together? I realise that there is no accounting cross-subsidy, but there are considerable organisational cross-subsidies and a synergy between the different elements of the Post Office which must be maintained.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has devised a scheme that is warmly welcomed by the people who run post offices. It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman opposes our plans for privatisation in this case. He has never supported any of the others. If he had supported this, I would be very worried.

Japanese Investment

Mr. Booth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the contribution of Japanese investment in the British car industry in securing jobs.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): Japanese inward investment to the United Kingdom car industry has been very substantial, with total planned investment of more than £2 billion, creating more than 7,000 direct jobs. The wider benefits have also been significant, particularly among components suppliers.

Mr. Booth: Britain and the Government have enjoyed wide and considerable success in attracting Japanese investment, with nearly half of all that made in Europe in the last 10 years coming to this country—as is evidenced by the successful business men who have chosen Finchley in which to live. To what does my right hon. Friend ascribe that success? Is it the Government's low corporate taxation, the welcome that we give such companies or the success of the DTI's efforts? None of those would be offered by the Opposition.

Mr. Needham: It can primarily be ascribed to a Conservative Government who welcome Japanese investment and who introduced the industrial relations reforms that mean that Japanese companies setting up in the United Kingdom can operate as productively and profitably as in Japan, and to the fact that Britain does not have a Labour Government.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Putting to one side the Minister's juvenile remarks about the reasons for investment in Britain, is he aware that it is widely welcomed throughout the country? The increasing level of local manufacture is also much welcomed. If the Minister can get down to industry and leave silly politics to one side, should not his next step be increasingly to concentrate design and development in the UK, which has many outstanding skills ready for exploitation? What will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Needham: I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not like political reality coming into his long and distinguished industrial career. However, he is right to say that we must maximise research and development facilities and our ability to design cars, which is formidable. He is also right to emphasise that we must give British industry the back-up and support to meet all its needs, which will ensure that the British automotive and components industries continue the success that they have enjoyed over the past few years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as long as we are in government, we will continue to do that.

Competitiveness

Mr. Amess: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further responses he has had from companies to his White Paper on competitiveness.

Mr. Heseltine: British businesses have been very positive about the White Paper on competitiveness. Its analysis has been accepted and its new initiatives welcomed.

Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that only by companies continuing to improve their competitiveness, as set out in the White Paper, will the United Kingdom economy continue to enjoy growth, will living standards continue to improve and will unemployment fall—as is happening throughout the country and in my constituency in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the politics of envy and unfairness as espoused by the socialists on the Opposition Benches would destroy the competitiveness of UK companies?

Mr. Heseltine: I heard what my hon. Friend said. I wholly agree with the thrust of his observations, which is why one takes such satisfaction from the most favourable set of economic statistics that we have enjoyed for many a long year.

Mr. Caborn: I welcome the White Paper, but it is unfortunate that there was an absence of Treasury involvement. Will the President of the Board of Trade make representations to his colleagues on the Treasury Bench for time to be made available for a full debate on the competitiveness of British industry, the backcloth being both the White Paper and the Select Committee report on the same subject?

Mr. Heseltine: I welcome the opportunity to debate the competitiveness White Paper, and the Government ensured that such a debate took place the other day. Conspicuously absent from that debate was any Labour Member.

Mr. Oppenheim: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent report by the Institute of Economic and Social Research? It showed that whereas UK manufacturing productivity lagged badly behind Germany in the 1970s, we out-performed Germany's growth in the 1980s; and that whereas we lagged behind other G7 members in the 1960s and 1970s, we were ahead of most of them in the 1980s. Does not that show that our supply side reforms in the 1980s helped to close the gap with our competitors? The period that we were in real danger of becoming a skivvy economy with Mickey Mouse jobs was not under this Government but under Labour.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the lesson that, in productivity, we significantly caught up our European competitors during the 1980s, as a direct consequence of the supply side reforms that the Government introduced. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the fact that we still have not yet achieved the productivity levels of some of our European competitors, and we must achieve that if we are to be truly competitive.

Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers approve of the predatory pricing policies of Rupert Murdoch and The Times?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not approve of predatory pricing policies, and if they offend the law, we are under a responsibility to examine them, but he would not expect me to make specific comments about the matters to which he referred unless they had been properly considered and reflected on.

Mr. Butcher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the depth and, indeed, the width of his White Paper on competitiveness, which has been warmly welcomed by broad sectors of industry, but might not a bit be missing? The White Paper is silent on the supply and price of capital to the capital-intensive small and medium-sized manufacturing sector. Given the growing worldwide shortage of risk capital, making Britain the most attractive place for mobile international risk capital would in turn help our manufacturing and small firms sector. Will he make representations to the Treasury on that so that we may be competitive in that regard as well?

Mr. Heseltine: I know of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the matter. He will know that the White Paper referred to those issues—indeed, specifically to inquiries that are now being conducted in the Treasury as part of its normal responsibilities and budget-forming judgment. The White Paper did not avoid the issues. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry referred to page 99 and following pages. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a glance at that important part of the White Paper when he has a moment during the long recess.

Mr. Barry Jones: Would it run counter to the White Paper if Railtrack were allowed to push up the costs of transporting by rail the coil and the raw materials for British Rail plc? Will he look at that matter? Does he agree that, unless Railtrack holds back, British Steel plc may find it hard to keep open some of its smaller plants?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the prime responsibility for Railtrack falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My Department is always interested in matters of competitiveness, but not, however, in those that are hypothetical and put in a scare technique method, long in advance of the risks having materialised.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the competitive Ford workers in my constituency who yesterday helped to secure Ford's investment decision to place its largest industrial research plant at Dunton? Ford UK placed it there because of the Ford workers in my constituency and because labour relations in Britain are now so attractive that we are the most competitive country in the whole of the Ford spectrum for that massive investment.

Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to support my hon. Friend's welcome for that important decision. I had the pleasure, just this week, of discussing with the chief executive officer of Ford the long-term plans for his company. He stressed to me that there were considerable opportunities for the United Kingdom, provided that we can achieve the competitive standards that would then attract his board to back the United Kingdom as a base in Europe.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the President aware that yesterday's report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development put Britain bottom in Europe for rights at work, with a mark of zero out of 10? If he is aware of that, will he confirm that that report could find no evidence that the social chapter had destroyed jobs in any of the countries that applied it? But it did find that Britain spent less on training than any other major European country. In the light of that report, will not even this Government now recognise that the key to competitiveness is a secure, skilled work force, and that we will not build the best work force in Europe on the basis of the worst rights in Europe and the poorest training in Europe?

Mr. Heseltine: The key to competitiveness is running an economy that enables our companies to win and attract people to base their investment here. The hon. Gentleman would do far better to recognise that the most important aspect of the job market is the fact that this country's economy is generating jobs faster than are the economies of most of its European competitors, because its climate is working economically and helping it to lead Europe out of recession. That is the Government's important achievement, and nothing that the hon. Gentleman says by way of selective quotation will undermine it.

Post Office Green Paper

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on his Green Paper on the Post Office.

Mr. Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: A reshuffle!

Mr. Heseltine: I can tell the House that the result that I am about to announce is just as good as the result that the reshuffle will produce.
The Green Paper was published on 30 June and responses are invited by 30 September. I have therefore understandably received relatively few responses to the document to date.

Mr. Marshall: At a time when the Post Office is facing increased international competition, and when the German and Dutch Post Offices are being privatised, would not it be entirely wrong to handicap British industry by denying it the advantages of privatisation and access to the capital markets?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend would not expect me to make any premature decisions. We are consulting widely on the future of the Royal Mail, and we have published an excellent Green Paper. Although the Green Paper expressed preference for the Government's proposal, we will listen carefully to what all right hon. and hon. Members, and people outside the House, have to say before we reach a final decision.

Mr. Barnes: Is not it pretty disgraceful that the chairman of the Post Office should jump on board the privatisation proposal in the Green Paper in the way that he has? Nearly all the chief executives and other officials who have been involved in the privatisation of gas, electricity and other utilities have responded similarly, rather than by recognising their public responsibility to operate public services. Has not that something to do with the Government's policy on monetarism and the private market?

Mr. Heseltine: That is one of the most preposterous statements that I have heard from an Opposition long famed for making preposterous statements. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in the trade union movement seems to be entitled to have his view paraded in the House as though it were the ultimate document; when the chairman comments, what he says is regarded as an insult and an abuse. I do not understand what democracy means to Opposition Members.

Mr. Dunn: In running scare stories about the future of sub-post offices, are not the Labour party and its socialist allies the Liberal Democrats in great danger of crying wolf just once too often, given that the future of the sub-post offices has been secured in the Green Paper?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend enables me to make the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made a few moments ago. The proposals for the sub-post offices have been warmly welcomed by representatives of the owners of those post offices, which shows once again that the Government have got it right and the Labour party has got it wrong.

Mr. Cousins: Will the President of the Board of Trade admit that 40 per cent. of the business of sub-post offices consists of the payment of cash benefits, and that a secure system for such payment is long overdue? Will he give the House and the sub-post offices a guarantee that they will not be charged for access to any new technology that may be introduced for secure payment and that banks and supermarkets will not be allowed access to that system, thus destroying the livelihood of those running sub-post offices?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands that the sub-post offices already provide some

banking services. The issue is whether they should be allowed to provide wider banking services. Nothing so characterises the difference between the Government and the Labour party as the fact that Labour wants to stop people from doing things, while we want to expand their opportunities.

Mr. Jenkin: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on local authorities that are already launching an anti-privatisation campaign—for instance, my local authority in Colchester, which is controlled by a Lib-Lab alliance? Are not those local authorities wasting their time in running unnecessary scare stories and should they not concentrate their efforts on keeping their council tax down?

Mr. Heseltine: That would be extremely attractive to local tax payers. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that I shall have to listen extremely carefully to all the representations and judge them on their merits before recommending to my colleagues the way in which we should proceed as the Green Paper consultation period comes to an end.

Competitiveness

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss his White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win."

Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the TUC. I had a discussion with the TUC in the run-up to the competitiveness White Paper. We are always ready for a constructive exchange of views with the TUC.

Mr. Chisholm: Why does not the Minister accept the recommendations of the Select Committee report on competitiveness in relation to a training levy, encouragement of research and development and restraint of dividend payments? Will the Minister reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about yesterday's OECD report on training, which showed a dramatic decline in the 1990s in this country so that expenditure is now a quarter of that in Germany? Will the Minister respond to a recent report, sponsored by his own Department, which pointed out that the top 200 international companies spend three times as much on R and D as on dividend payments whereas the top 362 companies in this country spend twice as much on dividend payments as on R and D? What will he do about those problems?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied carefully the White Paper on competitiveness and we welcome the interest, even from the Opposition, in this important subject. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the White Paper responds significantly to the recommendations of the Select Committee report and gives particular emphasis to the importance of training and education. It includes a wide range of new initiatives costing £300 million further to strengthen and build on what we have already done to improve our standards of training and to raise the quality of education—measures which were opposed consistently by the Opposition parties.

Mr. Fabricant: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the TUC, will he point out to them that the infrastructure of the United Kingdom is important for our balance of trade? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of British Steel is now saying that, because of what has happened today, last week and the week before, he will now have to reconsider the means by which steel is transported in the United Kingdom? It is not just the passengers who are being affected by the rail strike but freight.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an obvious point clearly and strongly. It is extraordinary that it is a point not appreciated by the Labour party, which has consistently failed to condemn the unnecessary dispute.

Mr. Hardy: A few minutes ago, the President of the Board of Trade said that British industry should continue efforts to catch up with our European competitors. Is he aware that many industries, not least the engineering steel industry, have not only caught up with, but have surpassed, their European competitors, but that has done them little good in the face of unfair competition? Quite a few months ago, the Minister told the House that he had secured a guarantee that the unfair competition would be monitored. What has been the result of that monitoring and when will industry and the trade unions be aware that the monitoring has taken place?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the achievements of the privatised British steel industry. He will surely recognise that the improvement from over 13 man hours to produce a tonne of steel to under four hours, which is the latest figure, is as a result of the productivity gains achieved by the private sector management. I share with the hon. Gentleman concern about achieving a level playing field. We are making progress, as I told the House earlier, and the Commission has made it clear that it is prepared to open proceedings against any companies that breach the agreement reached on 17 December.

Mr. Batiste: If the TUC genuinely wants competitiveness and wants British business to win, would not the best thing it could do today be to tell its union members that industrial action in pursuit of inflationary wage demands is undermining everything that British industry will need in the years ahead to fight in an increasingly competitive world environment?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an eminently sensible suggestion. I can only add that another useful and sensible thing that it could do to help the competitiveness of British industry and its own influence would be to sever its links with the Labour party.

Mr. Clapham: In the light of the OECD report published yesterday, which cited trade unions, consultation and collective bargaining as being good for labour market efficiency, will the Minister be urging on business the extension of trade union rights and trade union recognition as a way of improving British competitiveness?

Mr. Sainsbury: No. We shall leave those matters to be decided by management in consultation with their own work force.

Post Office Counters Ltd.

Mr. McFall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what would be the cost of running Post Office Counters Ltd. as a separate business.

Mr. Heseltine: Since 1986, Post Office Counters Ltd. has been run as a separate business, negotiating arm's-length contracts with clients and suppliers. On this basis, the company has been consistently profitable.

Mr. McFall: The Minister will know that the Post Office directly subsidises 10,000 post offices to the tune of £30 million a year and that those post offices are to be found in rural and small urban areas. Given that they are the areas that will suffer any losses, will the cross-subsidy be maintained in future? If not, will not it mean an accelerated death for rural and small urban post offices?

Mr. Heseltine: The House knows by now that we have made clear the value that we place on the maintenance of the network of sub-post offices. If we had not been able to satisfy the sub-post offices of our good intentions, they would not have welcomed our proposals in the way that they have.

Departmental Suppliers (Unpaid Bills)

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount of money owed by his Department to suppliers in 1992 and 1993 which remained unpaid after 30 days from the presentation of invoices.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The information in the form requested by the hon. Gentleman could be made available only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department's annual surveys of its payment performance showed that in 1991–92, 80 per cent. of invoices were paid either within 30 days or within the agreed credit period. The corresponding figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 were 90.5 and 90 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Michie: Talking about disproportionate cost, what about the firms that are struggling because they have not been paid? Why does not the President of the Board of Trade ensure that his Department pays its bills promptly or within 30 days instead of setting a bad example to other firms which are also dragging their feet paying suppliers? Is not this just another case of, "Physician, heal thyself"?

Mr. Hamilton: I have just told the hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial improvement—from 80 to 90 per cent.—in the Department's practice in paying its bills within 30 days or according to the period set out in the contract. We hope to do better still, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is not unanimity, even in the small business sector, about the argument for making compulsory the payment of debts within 30 days or any other period because many people fear that such legislation could be used by big companies against small companies.

Mr. Forman: While the figures that my hon. Friend has just given clearly show the good example being set by his Department, which is very important, does he agree that options are open to firms of all sizes—for example, the granting of discounts for cash—that encourage prompt payment, and we do not necessarily have to have recourse to unwieldy law?

Mr. Hamilton: As the Minister with responsibility for deregulation, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there may be market solutions to the problem that are better than centralised regulation. I am grateful to him for the interest that he takes in this matter and for his useful suggestions.

Mr. Purchase: Would not the President of the Board of Trade be doing British industry in general a service if he were to encourage all Government Departments to meet their responsibility to make early payment right across the place? I am sure that he recognises that cash management problems, especially in small businesses, are extremely acute at the moment and likely to continue to be so. Therefore, will he have a word with colleagues in other Departments and ensure an evenness of policy?

Mr. Hamilton: There have been two questions implying that I am now the President of the Board of Trade —I am afraid that I have not seen the most recent news on television.
Of course the DTI is concerned to ensure that the payment practice of all UK companies and organisations that have to pay bills is improved. That is certainly the best practice that we should like to see, but whether it is best achieved by imposing regulation is very questionable. As I said a moment ago, there is by no means unanimity, even among small firms and their representative organisations, about the way forward. We believe that the package of measures outlined in the White Paper on competitiveness will be a useful step forward. We will keep it under review and we have said that in two years we shall examine how things have gone and if we are required to do more, there is no doubt that we shall do it.

Regional Selective Assistance

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to change the criteria relating to regional selective assistance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Government keep the criteria relating to regional selective assistance under continuous review to ensure that we get the best value for money and that the RSA scheme makes an effective contribution to the competitiveness of British industry.

Mrs. Campbell: Does that mean that the Minister agrees with the DTI spokesperson who said that there was increasing emphasis on the quality of the jobs created, and is he therefore looking for excuses to cut regional selective assistance—yes or no?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that, because of her interest in the subject, the hon. Lady will be aware that expenditure on regional selective assistance last year was substantially greater than expenditure the previous year. We expect expenditure this year to be further increased.

Manufactured Goods (Exports)

Mr. Hendry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest information he has on the level of exports of manufactured goods.

Mr. Needham: In the latest three months, manufactured export volumes were 8 per cent. higher than those of a year earlier, and were at an all-time record level.

Mr. Hendry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fact that exports, manufacturing output, productivity, retail sales and business confidence are up, while we are keeping down the social costs on business, the rate of strikes, interest rates and the rate of inflation, gives us the best opportunity for increased growth, new jobs and rising living standards for everyone?

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the key needs are to ensure that that confidence is maintained and that business in this country realises how good the news is. It would be helpful if, from time to time, Opposition Members supported us in that aim.

Mr. Tony Banks: When did the United Kingdom last have a balance of payments surplus in manufactured goods?

Mr. Needham: We last had such a surplus at the end of the 1970s. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The fact is, however, that the proportion of manufactured goods as a percentage of the economy of this country is no lower than the proportion in France or in Italy. Our surplus on invisibles is growing. Our volume of manufactured trade and exports has stabilised since the mid-1980s; the decline that continued remorselessly when the Labour party was in power has stopped.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that engineering employers in East Anglia have recently reported a considerable improvement in export performance? Is not that good news? As our exports to the European Union are rising faster than our exports to countries outside the Union, is not it vital that, as a Government and as a country, we continue to work at the heart of Europe?

Mr. Needham: Of course my hon. Friend is right. Furthermore, the manufacturing deficit continues to decline. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) used to be always on his feet saying that it was a danger and a disgrace that the deficit in manufactured goods was likely to increase, but now that it is falling he sits on his hands and looks at his feet.

National Consumer Council

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect of the reduction in the National Consumer Council's budget on its work in 1994–95.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am confident that the National Consumer Council will continue to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers as a whole.

Mr. Jamieson: Does not the Minister consider that reducing the budget of the NCC by £430,000 a year will seriously impair its ability to represent consumer interests? Is that reduction being made because the NCC's recent report has embarrassed the Government? For example, it showed that single pensioners in the south-west have to spend 9.1 per cent. of their income simply to pay their water bills.

Mr. McLoughlin: We take no lessons from the Opposition on the funding of the NCC. In 1976–77,


funding was £452,000. The latest figure is £2.47 million which is an increase in real terms of 46.5 per cent. so we will shall take no lessons from the Opposition.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. MacShane: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to visit the steel industry in Rotherham to discuss the impact of subsidies to other EC steel industries.

Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the steel industry in Rotherham.

Mr. MacShane: If the President of the Board of Trade were to visit any of the steel plants in Rotherham, he would find a strong sense of partnership and co-operation between trade unions and managers, contributing to the success of the British steel industry. Does the Minister agree that the

demotion of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the most anti-partnership and right-wing Minister in the Cabinet —to the Department of Employment shows that the partnership policies needed to make British industry a success have no chance at all until the next election?

Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman were to visit any section of British industry, he would find now a much greater sense of partnership between management and work force; they are not two sides, but one side of industry. That is, of course, a result of the reforms of industrial relations introduced by this Government, which were consistently opposed by the Labour party, which the hon. Gentleman supports. Those reforms have contributed substantially to the increase in productivity and to the improvement in the performance of British industry of which we should all be proud, rather than constantly denigrating it as the Labour party does.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Now that you have had a chance to look at yesterday's Hansard, does it occur to you that it was just a little bit presumptuous of the Prime Minister to assume that permission to ask the private notice questions which he recommended to all of us would necessarily be granted by you? On the basis of the Prime Minister's attitude, have you, by chance, had a request from him to make a statement to satisfy us in relation to Mr. Santer's statement yesterday in Strasbourg?

Madam Speaker: No, I have had no information from any members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, that they seek to make a statement. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, although I am often tempted by the questions put to me about private notice questions, I do not discuss them, or my decisions about them, across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made a suggestion to the Government at Question Time about the possibility of keeping the Post Office together rather than splitting it up. I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Technology roundly rejected that suggestion in spite of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade had said that a consultation process was in hand. The House is rising tomorrow—

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not want an argument. I am not involved in political argument. I simply want a procedural point to be put to me.

Mr. Bruce: The point is that the House will rise tomorrow and will not meet again before the consultation process has been concluded. What avenues are available to hon. Members to ensure that we get guidance from the President of the Board of Trade about which Minister is in charge of the consultation?

Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Order Paper, which shows that we are due to have a three-hour motion on the Adjournment which, if I am allowed to, I shall get to fairly shortly.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Looking at the Order Paper for today, I see that the business of the day has been changed as a result of an hon. Member's action yesterday. In consequence, Back-Benchers' time in the Adjournment debates under the Consolidated Fund Bill debate will be limited and it may not be possible, because my debate is No. 16—[Interruption.] It has been changed, I understand, to No. 15 as a result of the withdrawal of a debate by an hon. Member. However, it may not be possible for the House to discuss the very important matter of saving the Royal Marines school of music in Deal before the recess. Could we not have some arrangement whereby Back Benchers' matters are taken into account better than they have been?

Madam Speaker: Over the past few weeks, I have heard the hon. Gentleman raise on many occasions the matter to which he refers. I am sure that his constituents are delighted by the methods he uses to bring the matter to the House's attention.

BILLS PRESENTED

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Gordon McMaster, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Sir David Steel, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. William McKelvey, Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. Don Dixon, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Scotland, discrimination against disabled persons on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

Sale of Teesside International Airport &c.

Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the sale of Teesside International Airport to the private sector, and to make other provision in respect of the sale of municipally owned airports.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to introduce a Bill which would make provision for the sale of Teesside international airport and all other municipally owned airports. Currently, Teesside international airport is jointly owned by Cleveland county council, which has a 60 per cent. stake, and Durham county council, which has a 40 per cent. stake. The annual report of accounts shows that they have invested some £19 million of council tax payers' money in the airport recently.
I shall present four reasons why I believe that the sale would be in the best interests of the current owners, council tax payers, the airport itself, local business and air travellers. The first reason is the rapid growth in air travel. Teesside international airport was opened in 1964 and its first flight took place on 18 April, carrying some 10 passengers to Manchester. During the first year, passenger movements numbered 14,258. This year, the airport will achieve in the region of 500,000 passenger movements and is projecting, on its figures, an increase to some 1 million movements towards the end of the century. Clearly that growth in air passenger transport could not have been envisaged.
I turn to my second reason, which is one of the reasons why that growth has taken place: the new opportunities in air travel which have been brought about by the Government. At this stage, I pay a tribute to the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who, as Secretary of State for Transport, played a tremendous role in being the architect of the third air transport liberalisation package which gave European Union carriers free access to any international airport within the Community and allowed airlines to set their own fares. That competition will ensure that fares continue to fall and that air travel, with all its benefits, is made more accessible to more people.
My third reason is that, following the welcome decision of the local government commissioners, which was endorsed by the High Court recently, Cleveland county council is due to be abolished, and there will be substantial changes to Durham county council. At present, the board of Teesside international airport consists of councillors from the two authorities. These decisions will ensure that in future, if the airport is not sold, the board of an international airport in a highly competitive and technical field will be made up of representatives—councillors—from six authorities. The probability or possibility of that being an asset to the excellent managing director and the highly motivated and highly professional staff at Teesside international airport is unbelievable.
That brings me to my fourth and final reason—the opportunities that exist for the development of Teesside international airport. The airport stands on a huge 720-acre site. With investment of about £3 million, a new road could provide access to the southern side of the airport, with 250 acres of land ripe for development. That would bring much-needed jobs and investment to the area.
Improvements to the rail link, with the east coast main line only a few miles away at Darlington, is another

significant investment which is long overdue. The hotel and conference centre could also be improved. At present, the hotel is the former officers' mess. In the latter part of the 21st century, an international airport should have a level of investment and a hotel and conference centre befitting the thriving hubbub of commercial activity which is Teesside.
Also, if our regional airports are to be able to compete in this new and exciting highly competitive market, they will require massive investment in runways, hangars, hotels, terminals, baggage handling and security. The big question arises: who will pay for all that while the airports remain under local authority control? I venture to suggest that, if my constituents from Loftus, some 40 miles away, were asked whether they should provide funding for repairs to a runway, they would point, rightly, to the parlous state of the roofs on their council homes, or to the school with its temporary prefabs which have now been there for 30 years. Local authority investment should be channelled into such work and not into an international airport, which could attract private capital and do a far better job in the process.
The councillors and aldermen who took the courageous decision in 1964 to convert RAF Middleton St. George into Teesside international airport could not, in their wildest dreams, have anticipated the growth in air travel that has occurred. That growth demands investment. The world has also changed and regional airports have outgrown the authorities that own them. If those authorities continue to cling on to them, they will stifle those airports' development, but if they set them free they can take pride in the role that they have played.

Mr. Stuart Bell: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). It was interesting to listen to the spirited way in which he expressed his wish to take from our local community another asset that is one of our family heirlooms. As the Earl of Stockton said, privatising a nationalised industry is equivalent to selling the family silver.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh pointed out how successful Teesside international airport has been since 1964 and then gave a trailer not only for its privatisation, but for the privatisation of all the municipal airports. One can see how the Government are scraping around trying to find other assets to privatise. I predict that, once they have discovered that those airports represent an asset to be sold for profit, they will look at municipal golf courses.
The doctrine of privatisation has not been the success that the Government like to claim it has been. United Kingdom plc used to own revenue-earning, income-earning, profit-earning assets, but they were taken away from it. [HON. MEMBERS: "You must be joking."] British Telecom made profits, did it not? British Gas and the electricity companies made profits, did they not?
All those profits went to the state—United Kingdom plc. The day that those companies were privatised, that revenue was lost to the state. As a consequence, the Government are now looking for additional revenue to supplement that lost revenue, so we have ended up with VAT on fuel. When one privatises an asset, one deprives


the state of its income and tax revenue and ends up taking that lost money from pensioners' pockets. That is a travesty.
The hon. Member referred to the people of Loftus, but if we asked those people whether they wanted to contribute to their local economy or wanted to pay VAT on fuel, I know what the answer would be.
Durham county council and Cleveland county council have successfully managed Teesside international airport. They have demonstrated how local municipal councils can create a success story. Those councils should not be replaced by yet another quango, not least because, as quango after quango has been established, 70 per cent. of our revenues are handled by them rather than elected bodies which are democratically accountable.
The hon. Member, who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, is looking for promotion to the Front Bench. Although it may be easy to get to that Bench, he will learn that it is even quicker to go from it to the Back Benches, as his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) can tell him. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh is trailing yet another privatisation for the Government. The Treasury views the outcome of that privatisation as it did the privatisation of our ports—it sees little pots of gold that it can keep, and why not? With a £38 billion deficit to cover in its Budget per year, those pots of gold are very attractive.
Conservative Members live in a dream world. They have built an image for themselves of a successful economy and of a successful series of privatisations. What they have created, however, is a series of monopolies, which have ended up taking more money from the pockets of our people than was ever taken from them when those industries were nationalised.
We should oppose not only the proposal to take a local asset from Teesside, but the idea of privatising our municipal airports and the entire concept of privatisation. The family heirlooms have been sold, North sea oil has been used and we have a deficit of £38,000 million. That is a failure, not a success. I ask the House to oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 63,Noes 132.

Division No. 300]
[3.44


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fry, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Gale, Roger


Ashby, David
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gorst, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawksley, Warren


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, Sir David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Lidington, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mates, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Moate, Sir Roger


Fabricant, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley





Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Spink, Dr Robert



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the AYES:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Charles Hendry.


Stern, Michael



Sweeney, Walter





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Alton, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Austin-Walker, John
Jamieson, David


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Bayley, Hugh
Jowell, Tessa


Beggs, Roy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Keen, Alan


Bell, Stuart
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Khabra, Piara S.


Bermingham, Gerald
Kilfedder, Sir James


Berry, Roger
Kilfoyle, Peter


Blunkett, David
Livingstone, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Eddie


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McAllion, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McAvoy, Thomas


Burden, Richard
McFall, John


Byers, Stephen
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
MacShane, Denis


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Clapham, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Milburn, Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morgan, Rhodri


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Corston, Ms Jean
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cousins, Jim
Mullin, Chris


Cox, Tom
O'Neill, Martin


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dafis, Cynog
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Pickthall, Colin


Darling, Alistair
Pope, Greg


Davidson, Ian
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Primarolo, Dawn


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Purchase, Ken


Denham, John
Radice, Giles


Dewar, Donald
Raynsford, Nick


Dixon, Don
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Dobson, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Eastham, Ken
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Faulds, Andrew
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Fisher, Mark
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Fyfe, Maria
Sheerman, Barry


Gerrard, Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Spellar, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Straw, Jack


Grocott, Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hanson, David
Tipping, Paddy


Hardy, Peter
Trimble, David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Vaz, Keith


Henderson, Doug
Wallace, James


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Walley, Joan


Hoey, Kate
Wareing, Robert N


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hoyle, Doug
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Hutton, John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Illsley, Eric
Wilson, Brian


Ingram, Adam
Winnick, David






Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting,—
(1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House shall not lapse at Ten o'clock and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eight o'clock in the morning, at which hour, unless proceedings thereon have previously been concluded, the Motion shall lapse; and
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall, not later than one and a half hours after the Motion in the name of Mr. Greg Knight relating to Privileges has been entered upon, put the Question already proposed from the Chair and, if that Question is for the Amendment of the said Motion, then put forthwith the Main Question or the Main Question, as amended; notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising to-morrow, do adjourn
until Monday 17th October.—[Mr. Newton.]

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: The House should not adjourn for the summer recess without having an opportunity to consider the National Audit Office report of 29 June 1994, dealing with the policies of the Department of Transport on the acquisition, management and disposal of land and property that has been purchased for road construction. Once again, the Department appears to be seen in a poor light, showing inadequate management and an apparent indifference to the anxieties and suffering of individual people living in their own homes.
On the schemes examined by the National Audit Office, the Department median average time to announce the preferred route was 10 years from the time of the original announcement, and a further six years to reach the compulsory purchase stage. Two schemes that the National Audit Office examined took 20 years or more.
The only part of the National Audit Office report in which the Department receives some encouragement is from section 2.24 onwards, concerning informing the public, but even there there are shortcomings, which are identified in section 2.26:
In April 1994 the Highways Agency published their acquisitions charter statement, 'Your Home and Trunk Road Proposals', which aims to provide homeowners with clear and straightforward information on the type of compensation available for those whose property is affected and the stages at which they can claim. The charter statement does not commit the Highways Agency, however, to publicising on individual schemes the point at which discretionary purchase applications will be considered.
That is important.
Part 3 of the National Audit Office report gives the main cause for concern up and down the country, particularly in my constituency. It is the part dealing with the management of land and property. Section 3.4 of the informative report states:
The Internal Audit examination in 1991 (paragraph 1.6) noted that the managing agreements then in force lacked clear guidance and objectives on rent levels, rent arrears, maintenance expenditure and vacancy levels. Although the Department issued further guidance on these matters in 1992, five of the 14 agents responding to the National Audit Office survey considered that the guidance still lacked clarity on some areas such as security costs.
On the important subject of monitoring performance, paragraph 3.6 states:
The Department do not analyse and compare the performance of regions and agents and they do not, therefore, have information to identify variations and to help focus on particular problem areas. The Department's lack of computerised information until recently has also severely hampered their ability to monitor achievements.
On the subject of vacancy levels, section 3.9 states:
The National Audit Office found that at 31 March 1993 for all land and property owned by the Department there were rent arrears of £2 million or 21 per cent. of total collectable income
for that particular year.
In paragraph 3.11, the report states:
The National Audit Office found that by 31 March 1993 for the 2350 residential agent managed properties, rent arrears of £1.2 million had accumulated, or about 20 per cent. of total collectable income for 1992–93. This compares with 17 per cent. one year earlier and 14 per cent. at 31 March 1987.
In my constituency, the problem has been exacerbated. Behind all the statistics produced by the National Audit


Office lie real life stories. One example involves an address at New Haw in my constituency—41, Pinewood avenue. A letter sent to me by the chief executive of Runnymede borough council stated:
A particular property at 41 Pinewood Avenue provides a graphic illustration of the sorts of problems that local residents have to tolerate. It was acquired in 1993 and squatters broke in in October/November 1993. The terrified family next door contacted the agents many miles away in Guildford but received no response. Numerous telephone calls to the Department of Transport at Dorking and letters also resulted in no response. During this time the squatters arrived at any time day and night with loud music and drug pushing. Police patrolled but squatters used rear access along the motorway to escape raids. The Department of Transport officials at Dorking were very defensive and unco-operative, often with an unpleasant attitude with little or no concern for the problems of residents and their quality of life. Endless further delays and finally court action resulted in the squatters being evicted at the end of May this year, some six/seven months of absolute misery for local residents. As though this was not enough the Department of Transport and their managing agents left this property unsecured even after eviction and squatters made further attempts to break back into the premises.
Only after representations by the local authority and myself was priority given to the particular property—short-let tenants have now been installed.
Many people are surprised at the attitude of the Department of Transport to the public and local authorities. It seems to make little attempt to be user-sensitive or to try to understand the anxieties of local people. The upheaval caused by the planning and construction of a motorway is a traumatic experience for anyone. To add to that trauma, the problems of squatting, vandalism and drug-related activities is completely unacceptable in this day and age, and all the more so when those activities result from mismanagement on the part of the Department.
What Runnymede borough council finds so extraordinary about the whole matter is that it has devised a scheme to cope with homelessness in its area. It has developed an effective private partnership scheme under which private landlords make their properties available for families who would otherwise be homeless. The properties are handed back at the end of the tenancy agreement and the families are rehoused in other suitable properties. The properties are well looked after, there are no voids, there is a sensible income and homeless people get somewhere to live. All that shows a well-managed housing policy, and Runnymede offered to provide that service to the Department of Transport for the usual fees. No reply has been forthcoming.

Sir Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend and I have the pleasure of sharing Runnymede borough council, which crosses our two constituencies. It really is a pleasure most of the time, but it has not been a pleasure during the planning stage of the link road. It has caused absolute havoc for people living in Thorpe and Egham—a very nice village and a very nice town. Many properties have been blighted and I hope that my right hon. Friend will mention that in his speech. It is almost impossible for people to move. People with a growing family who need an extra bedroom for the children find it impossible to get rid of their houses at anything other than knock-down prices. Devastation has been caused and the Department of Transport should be doing something about it.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who draws attention to the problems that his constituents share with mine. Over both our areas, about 120 properties have been acquired by the Department.
A local authority with a proven record on managing housing stock well and to the advantage of all concerned has been spurned by the Department. That has led to the problems and mismanagement that I have described anti to the additional costs to the public purse that have been highlighted so well in the National Audit Office report.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It is difficult to know whether to congratulate or commiserate with the Leader of the House on surviving this morning's slaughter in Downing street.
I want to refer in this debate to two important decisions of this House still awaiting implementation, about each of which we are entitled to at least an oral ministerial statement before we rise for the summer recess. The first concerns the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which, since I first presented it to the House for First Reading in 1991, has had over 40 hours of parliamentary debate. I am told that that is rather longer than it took to dispatch King Charles I.
In an attempt to end what is now being called the "filibuster of the century", the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) moved a motion on 29 April in the following terms:
That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Ministers should provide sufficient time on the floor of the House before 27th May 1994 to allow all remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to be completed, and that sufficient time be provided before the end of the Session for the consideration of any Amendments to the Bill which may be made by the House of Lords."—[Official Report, 29 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 497.]
Like the Bill itself, the motion had strong backing in all parts of the House and it was approved, after nearly five hours of debate, without a single vote against.
A speech on the motion from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People left the Bill's supporters here and all across Britain with high hopes that its Report stage, due the following Friday, was being approached by the Government in a spirit of honest endeavour to reach common ground with the Bill's all-party sponsors. Unless words had lost their meaning, it was said, the Minister was at the very least committed by that speech to ensure fair play at the Bill's Report stage on 6 May. But then came a rude awakening.
It was discovered that in fact the Minister, even before he spoke on the hon. Member for Exeter's motion, had already given instructions for the Bill to be destroyed. Within four days of the Minister's speech, 80 new amendments to the Bill were tabled en bloc, all in the names of five Conservative Members. The amendments were drafted for them, at taxpayers' expense, by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on instructions given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 20 April, nine days before his speech of 29 April on the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter. Inevitably the effect of the amendments was to ensure that the Bill would be talked out on Report.
There were attempts at first to give the impression that the 80 amendments had been drafted by the five Members themselves. That impression was corrected by the Leader of the House in a parliamentary reply to me on 6 May, in which he confirmed that all the amendments were drafted


by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Subsequently there were two statements of unreserved apology for misleading the House in proceedings on the Bill: one by the Minister himself, and the other by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). But their statements were scant consolation for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. For them, as they have since made clear to all Members, the wrecking of the Bill was an unforgivable act.
They feel deceived and betrayed. They point out that the Bill had the support of a clear majority of Members; that it had been given a Second Reading in the House of Lords on three occasions and completed all its stages there as long ago as November 1992; that the Bill's sponsors had consulted both very widely and in detail about its provisions; and that the response to that consultation had been strongly positive. They recall the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter and they regard the Government's failure to implement it as contemptuous of this House. Above all, they ask why, if the Government felt that their case was even remotely defensible, there was so much deceit and deception in responding to the Bill at a time when the Prime Minister was stressing his determination to restore
the highest standards in public life.
The Leader of the House may say that we have now had the Minister's statement of last Friday and seen the consultative document. But that is no answer to disabled people who ask, in anguish and with anger, what trust they can ever have in Ministers who promise consultation while continuing even to ignore the opinion of the House of Commons itself. If they can ignore the House, whose preference for the Bill over all the alternatives was clearly expressed in its approval of the motion on 29 April, then whose opinions are they ever likely to accept if they differ from the Government's own? That is the question leading representatives of disabled people are asking after the Minister's statement last Friday. They complain bitterly of being forced to trade a good and viable Bill for a promissory note of little face value, let alone real value.
As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has a duty in this debate to respond to the very deeply felt concern among disabled people, more especially about the apparent futility of the parliamentary process when, as it seems to them, the decision taken by this House on 29 April has been so unceremoniously dumped by the Government and without any attempt at justification.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that the motion the House approved on 29 April was by no means extravagant. To opt for extravagance is not the way of the hon. Member for Exeter. All that his motion sought was an hour or so of parliamentary time to meet the strongly reaffirmed call from disabled people for full citizenship, and, as the hon. Member for Exeter said in moving the motion:
We are not asking for the impossible or even for the original. Between 1951 and 1985, private Members' Bills were given Government time, of which 33 were granted extra time by Conservative Governments. Library records show that, between 1979 and 1986, four private Members' balloted Bills were given Government time. All those Bills show that, where there is a parliamentary will, there is a parliamentary way."—[Official Report, 29 April; Vol. 242, c. 505.]

It is still not too late for the Government to make the only worthwhile apology for their scandalously indefensible treatment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. They can do so by honouring the decision taken by the House on 29 April. Time can still be found for the Bill's remaining stages before this Session ends, and I implore the right hon. Gentleman now to accept the will of the House as expressed by its approval of the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter.
The Government's treatment of that motion is not an isolated case. There is now the further case of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on the welfare of the ex-service community, which the House approved on 1 July 1994. It is a motion in which I have an interest to declare, but not a financial one, as honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. My hon. Friend's motion was in the following terms:
That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-service community in direct consequence of 'Options for Change', considers that there is now a pressing need for a sub-Department of Ex-Service Affairs within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the case and welfare of ex-service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to the Royal British Legion's urgent call for a sub-department to be established.
The issue addressed by that motion is one about which the ex-service community feels very strongly. This year's Royal British Legion conference, which spoke for 800,000 legion members, voted unanimously to press the Government to establish the sub-department.
At a time when bits and pieces of responsibility for ex-service affairs are scattered all over Whitehall, ex-service organisations want someone in Government to focus attention on all their concerns: a Minister in an existing Department who can provide full access to the whole Government through a single Whitehall door. They do not seek to emulate other countries with full-blown departments of state for veterans' affairs, but simply to make life easier for the ex-service community here in the UK—not least the war disabled and war bereaved—by achieving a modest and common-sense change in the machinery of government.
For ex-service organisations, in representing their members' interests, now to have to deal with 17 different Ministries is bureaucratic and inefficient, costly to the taxpayer, damaging to the reputations of Whitehall and Westminster, and hurtful to the ex-service community. Who can doubt that all the tension there was recently between the Government and the ex-service community over the 50th anniversary of D-day could have been avoided if there had been more sensitivity to and awareness of that community's wishes than could be achieved under existing arrangements?
In a parliamentary question to the Prime Minister, I asked
if he will be meeting representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the approval by the House on 1 July of the resolution on the welfare of ex-service people; and what representation he has had from the Legion in regard to a meeting".
His answer was:
We welcome continuing close contact with the Royal British Legion and other service organisations. A request for a meeting has been received from the Royal British Legion and is being considered at present."—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 712.]


My question gave the Prime Minister an opportunity to assure the ex-service community that the Government recognise the importance to them of the decision taken by the House on 1 July; but his reply ignored the decision, even though the Royal British Legion's request to see him was expressly for the purpose of discussing that decision.
Not content with his response, I tabled a further parliamentary question to the Prime Minister requesting a clear statement of the Government's intentions. I asked him
if it is his intention at present or at any time in the future to implement the Resolution of the House of 1 July on the welfare of ex-service people".
His reply of 15 July was:
We have no such plans at present".—[Official Report, 15 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 778.]
That reply will be widely seen, and not only in the ex-service community, as grossly unsatisfactory. It does nothing for the Government's reputation and is demeaning of this House. The Leader of the House, who made plain his respect for the ex-service organisations here last Thursday, must surely now recognise the concern provoked by the Government's contemptuous dismissal of the decision taken by the House to help their members. What on earth is the use of allocating parliamentary time for private Members' motions when, if they are approved, the Government act as if they had never been debated? Is that not to denigrate and diminish this House?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now arrange very urgently for oral ministerial statements on the Government's response to the motions approved both on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on 29 April and the welfare of the ex-service community on 1 July? In discharge of his responsibilities to all Members of the House, will he also do his best to ensure that the response in each case is both positive and worthy of the people whom the two motions sought to help? After all, they are people whose claims on the attention of this House deserve the highest priority.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I welcome this opportunity and am grateful for the fact that I can make a speech about my constituency. The subject that I wish to address is important to my constituents, and, indeed, many hon. Members, on both sides of the House—local government reorganisation and the unfolding reports of the Local Government Commissioners.
As far as Hereford-Worcester is concerned, in the old county of Hereford, there is considerable concern about that. The detail of that concern can be made clear to the House, and I, and other hon. Members, hope to participate in the debates, which, I dare say, will come during the next Session and next year. But at this stage, in terms of the background of the 1972 reorganisation, before we get on to the present one, nothing produces such strong feelings—few things do—as interfering with people's local government boundaries. Within parties, it divides—Conservative against Conservative, Labour against Labour. It generates an awful lot of feeling across the country. We have been brave enough to embark on a further reform, and the message that I am giving is that, now that we have done so, we will have to finish it.
The county of Hereford was merged with Worcestershire in 1972. There was great uncertainty about before that time with the Redcliffe-Maude commission

under the previous Labour Government. The intensity of feeling as a result nearly caused the loss of two Conservative seats. It is a relevant warning for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has championed the cause of Herefordshire and, indeed, is associated with much of what I have to say. We need to know where we stand. We intend to conclude the inquiries and recommendations on which we have embarked. I would be grateful for any ministerial assurance that can be given along those lines.
The existing county of Hereford-Worcester has had a comparatively brief local government life of 20 years. It has worked very well. I am the only cross-border Member of Parliament, in the sense that my constituency is two thirds Herefordshire—the old county—and one third Worcestershire. Worcestershire has four times more people than Herefordshire and has been a very great support, not least over rural schools and libraries. All those things and the finance that comes from a good base in that regard can be used to support the rural areas.
My tribute to the existing county is very relevant to the proposals for change. The Local Government Commission has now delivered its first report; its recommendation, and two further options for the county of Hereford and Worcester, are in favour of a unitary authority of Herefordshire. A geographically vast and, indeed, beautiful area on the Welsh border—it has a population of some 162,000, while neighbouring Worcestershire's population is more than four times larger—will have everything except an obvious financial base.
Let me make two points to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, one specific and the other general. I shall not discuss the proposals for Worcestershire, save to say that my constituency includes Tenbury Wells, which —with the surrounding area—is affected by the proposals of the Local Government Commission.
I anticipate that Tenbury Wells will want a rural connection; in the context of the recommendations for Worcestershire, it may go for a two-tier Worcestershire authority, which would mean its being part of a Malvern Hills district council. I merely encourage Tenbury Wells to speak out to the commissioners. Household after household is currently receiving the recommendations, and being invited to participate in consultation.
The county of Herefordshire is cohesive and extremely historic. As I have said, it has everything but a good financial base. It is a vast area, and will clearly incur expense in delivering county services, however resourceful and ingenious the new council may be. If we create the new county—everyone wants it, including me—we shall have to finance it, which will mean a central. Government grant formula that caters for the smaller and, in particular, the rural counties that we are creating.
I think—dare I say it—that this is a matter on which both sides of the House must agree: I have observed during my parliamentary life that a change of Government can mean an infinitesimal touch on the tiller, leading to a diminution of resources from the centre to, for instance, rural areas.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hesitate to interfere in matters concerning Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Some of us, however, spent 177 hours in Committee Rooms 12 and 14 considering the Local Government etc.
(Scotland) Bill. Many of the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes are just a year ahead, and how we are suffering.

Mr. Temple-Morris: This is not the first time that Scotland has been the precursor in terms of various local government events—if I may use suitably neutral phraseology. I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's speeches, and I shall certainly try to read some of the proceedings on the Bill that he mentions.
In fact, the hon. Gentleman's intervention reinforces my view. I fear that if—for political or other reasons, some of which may be somewhat emotional—we create entities and are then not prepared to show the colour of our money by financing them, there will be nothing but trouble for the areas concerned. A rural area with a weak financial base is extremely vulnerable. I have said that locally, and I now say it nationally. There is little or no local padding when it comes to making up for any deficiency in central Government grant.
We have started the process; let us finish it. Whatever entity we create, if our creation depends on the centre it is the obligation and duty of the centre to finance it.

Ms Kate Hoey: I want to raise a couple of issues that relate not just to my constituency but to the country generally. They are issues that should be brought to the attention of the House before it rises for the summer recess. We are about to begin what many members of the public assume will be holiday and leisure time for Members of Parliament. We know that most of that time will be spent working in our constituencies. Those of us with London constituencies do not leave this place very often, even during the summer.
One thing that many hon. Members may wish to do during the summer and which many people do is play cricket. Surrey county cricket club, which I am privileged to have in my constituency is currently doing extremely well, and I hope that it will go on to win something this year. I have just come from the Oval, where the House of Commons and the House of Lords cricket team is playing a South African ambassador's team as a celebration of South Africa being brought back into the international cricketing world.
An important development in Surrey county cricket club is the way in which it has increasingly tried to do more for young people in the area who want to get involved in playing cricket. In inner-city areas, cricket has sometimes been seen as an elitist game, but Surrey county cricket club is trying to ensure that it is not viewed in that way, but is seen as a game that many of our young people, particularly from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds, can play. There have been good developments at Surrey on that.
The freehold of the Oval is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. That means that the Duchy of Cornwall—indeed, the heir to the throne—has a great deal of control over what the cricket club can do. Surrey county cricket club has been trying for some time to purchase the freehold, because it would like to have control of its own destiny. It is a famous ground and it should be able to develop further, in the interests of cricket locally and nationally and for the good of the local community in my constituency.
Unfortunately, the Duchy of Cornwall is not keen to sell the freehold. It is not that it is not used to selling things. Since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall in 1989, the Duchy has sold off all its housing in Kennington. Admittedly, it has sold it to a housing association, and a large amount of that housing has stayed in social ownership. I pay tribute to the Duchy for the way in which it handled that sale. However, it refuses to enter into negotiations about selling the Oval freehold.
Early-day motion 1552 has been tabled today with cross-party support. It has nearly 50 signatures already, and we hope that, by the end of the week, it will have substantially more, because we feel that, in this day and age, as we move into the next century, it is quite wrong for an individual and the Duchy of Cornwall to have control over whether Surrey county cricket club wishes to put on a new door handle, put a screw in a particular place or build something new in the interests of local people. Every time it wants to do anything, it has to obtain Duchy approval, Duchy architects have to be paid for and the costs are increasing. It is disgraceful.
I hope that, by my bringing this to the attention of the House, all those people who love cricket will use whatever influence they have to persuade the Duchy to sell the freehold to Surrey. If that happened, Surrey county cricket club would be able to celebrate its 150th anniversary next year with a present from His Royal Highness Prince Charles.
The second issue I want to raise is also a leisure activity, but not something with which I am involved. Those who know me may find it unusual that I intend to raise the issue of pubs, publicans and the brewery industry, because I am not known to frequent the bars of the House. However, I have many pubs in my constituency, and I recognise what a focal point they are in the community for social activity. I was delighted to sponsor the Vauxhall "pub of the year" award.
Luckily, or unluckily, many Members of Parliament live in my constituency, and when they are not busily engaged in their duties here, they frequent the pubs there. As the House rises for the summer recess, thereby giving hon. Members a greater opportunity to visits pubs in their own constituencies, I draw to the House's attention the plight of many landlords and landladies who are picked on and exploited by the major breweries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has been actively pursuing this issue, and many hon. Members have been lobbied by pub tenants. A large public meeting was organised recently by the very effective South London Licensed Victuallers Protection Association. Publicans from all over south London attended to find out how they could lobby more effectively.
Under the beer orders that the Government introduced a few years ago, the number of properties tied to each brewery was supposed to be limited to 2,000. The orders were intended to reduce monopoly control of the market, increase competition and diversity, and benefit the customer and the long-term interests of the industry. Those measures have clearly failed.
The brewing giants have effectively invested their money in lawyers and corporate strategists not only to get around the intention of the beer orders but to tighten and further restrict the operation of high street pub retail outlets. The situation now is even worse than before the introduction of the beer orders, which at best have been


woefully ineffective and at worst have colluded in aiding the interests of the brewers against those of the pub tenant and customer.
Although breweries were supposed to be limited to 2,000 tied houses each, they found a convenient way to get around the law. Grand Metropolitan swapped its brewing interest, Watney Truman, for the estate of Courage. It set up Inntrepreneur Ltd. and became a 50:50 partner in some 15,000 pubs. Whitbread and Bass also started leasing companies. Many times the supposed 2,000 limit for tied houses are still contractually tied to the same brewery—but now, under even more draconian, unfair and anti-competitive practices.
Publicans face absurd minimum purchase orders, despite the current recession in the pub trade, which is especially acute in areas such as that which I represent. If pub tenants fail to sell an often unrealistically large amount of their brewer's beer, they have to pay a heavy cash penalty—about £83 a barrel in many cases.
That loophole has led to the absurd situation of one publican I know having had four different corporate landlords in just five months even though he is still tied to the same brewery, paying the same extortionate rent and the same minimum purchase order penalty. The price that pub tenants have to pay for the beer they do manage to sell is also often far higher than that at which the same sales representative of the same brewery sells to neighbouring pubs.
Rents for tied houses are also skyrocketing—increases of 100 to 150 per cent. have been common on south London, and some are even greater. The rents are out of proportion to the declining value of properties and the market rents for similar sized shops or other businesses. Because of dubious valuations, one estimate of the worth of Grand Metropolitan's share of the pub empire is £150 million more than its real market value. That suggests to me that, in a world of high finance, there is another motive for continuing the anti-competitive monopolistic practices.
To use a pun, the only reason that tenants continue to put up with this appalling situation is that the breweries have them over a barrel. Tenants have often invested their life savings in their businesses; to walk away would be to invite bankruptcy, abandon all they have worked for, and make themselves homeless. For many people in their fifties, it could mean being unemployed for the rest a their lives. Even so, bankruptcy and financial ruin are common, as breweries drain the last drop of cash from vulnerable tenants. Typically, suicide among publicans is on the increase.
I would usually give more details of the heavy-handed, bully-boy tactics of the brewery giants, but some tenants who attended meetings in the House were shortly afterwards visited by brewery managers, who threatened them for making trouble with their Members of Parliament. Test cases are currently before the courts, disputing the legality of some of the anti-competitive practices, so I shall not go into further detail of individual cases. The European Commission has also been considering a number of complaints, and is firmly of the opinion that the responsibility for sorting out the mess lies with our national Government.
I hope that, before the summer recess, the Government will get the message that a full review of the legislative and regulatory framework of the brewing industry is urgently needed. The beer orders have been tried, and have been seen to fail. I call on the Government to investigate

minimum purchase orders, excessive rent increases, over-valuation of properties, and the monopoly exploitation of tied house contracts.
When hon. Members visit pubs in their constituencies in the summer, they should ask the publican what is happening to him. I believe that they will then return to the House determined to get the Government to do something about the wholly unjust beer orders.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), who has conjured up summery pictures of cricket fields and of the consumption of beer. Like me, she is clearly in favour of a summer Adjournment, and of leisure—even if we do not always get as much of that during the recess as others may think. I am happy to follow her down that route.
I am a fan of Martyn Lewis, who is a proponent of good news—as some hon. Members will know, he spoke to the all-party media committee not long ago—and I welcome the opportunity to refer briefly to one or two encouraging trends over the past few months. That should counterbalance much that I—and, I am sure, others—have found negative about current political debate. I do not criticise any particular organisation or party, but I have detected a slight negativity, so in my short speech I shall refer to one or two positive factors.
First, I compliment the Government on the "Front Line First" announcement earlier this week. It contained good news for all of us who are keen on the reserve forces. Having read in the press that there might be further cuts in the reserves, we have now heard that their numbers will be held to 59,000, which is most welcome.
Originally, I had hoped to have the opportunity to debate that subject at greater length later tonight, with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, that will not now happen—for two reasons. First, my calculations show that there will not be time. Secondly, my hon. Friend may now have other things on his mind. I wish him well in his new appointment, which we have heard about today—and a very important appointment it is, too.
The announcement about the reserve forces was good news, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will get the message through to the Secretary of State for Defence that it was much appreciated. Will he also ensure that the promised legislation on the reserve forces, which has been written about during the last few months, will be introduced in the Queen's Speech?
If we are to encourage the reserve forces, we need to re-examine the employment implications, in terms both of employment security and of encouragement for employers to release people who are doing that worthwhile job, as members of our Territorial Army or our other voluntary reserves. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to ensure that there will be an announcement in the Queen's Speech about a Bill to update the law on the reserve forces. I trust that that point will be taken on board and passed on.
I shall now deal with something totally different. Over the past two years I, like millions of other people, have been encouraged by the success of the radio station Classic FM, which is now two years old. I see that my hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household is shaking his head. He may not be in favour of Classic FM—[HON.


MEMBERS: "Radio 1."]—but I am, and I am willing to debate with anyone the virtues of Classic FM and the appalling nature of Radio—[Interruption.] No; my hon. Friends will be encouraged to hear that I shall be brief.
Classic FM now has about 5 million listeners; that is good news. The point that I wish to make—not at length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although it is well worth making—is that, even in the commercial world, there is scope for success when the taste of the British public is respected rather than despised. Trendy individuals from places such as Islington, and other places that I have never visited and do not really understand, seem to have rather a low opinion of public taste, but the success of Classic FM shows what happens when public taste is respected.
People in this country have a real interest in good music, in good art, and in science, which is my particular interest. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) for all the excellent work that he has done for science and the scientific community while he has had ministerial responsibility for science. When I move among the scientific community, I have no doubt that there is much support and respect for his work in that area. I hope that that remark has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: In the view of many of us, it is absolutely absurd—so long as there is a Conservative Government —to move the right hon. Gentleman from that post at this stage in developments on the White Paper. Why on earth shift him at this stage?

Mr. Thompson: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down that road, but I do not retract my remarks about the work that my right hon. Friend has done for science.
In a scientific context, there is no more popular subject than astronomy. As a schoolteacher for many years, I was involved in running astronomy societies. Hon. Members may ask why I move on from science to refer to astronomy. The reason is straightforward. This week we have seen newspaper headlines about the collision caused by the comet Shoemaker Levy, travelling at about 135 mph, crashing into the planet Jupiter. That is a remarkable event, and I could talk about it at length, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will be relieved to know that I shall not do so.
My point, which links with what I said earlier about music and art, is that the study of astronomy and of other sciences is popular at all levels in society, and that that encourages a rational approach to the problems of society. That provides a counterbalance. I remember, when I was young, reading that when there was an eclipse of the sun, people in Africa banged drums to drive the evil dragon away. I regard that as equivalent to the nonsense about astrology that we can now read in the tabloids every day.
I favour the rational approach of astronomy, which is why I mention all the news about the comet and about Jupiter, which I find of great interest. However, hon. Members need not worry; I shall not speak for too long, but the subject is important—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for Walsall, North well enough to know that he will support what I say about a rational approach to society's problems.

Mr. David Winnick: Yes.

Mr. Thompson: It is part of the process of education to encourage detached observation and analysis of phenomena. If that had not taken place over the years, civilisation would not have progressed; and that progress will not continue unless we all encourage a detached, scientific analytical approach to the problems that we face. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recognise, even if no one else does, that I am making a serious point—and one that is also valid in the context of our parliamentary debates.
I do not want to make too much of my final comment, but it is sad that observation of the parliamentary process by the media now seems to be propelled by forces other than the detached approach that was taken in the past—in 1948 or in 1958, for example. I have done some research and made comparisons, using The Times, The Guardian and all the other newspapers. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I am not going to go into all that research in detail, but I have studied the approach in 1948, 1958, 1968, 1988 and 1994.
There has been a change from that detached approach. Dare I say that gossip, and ego trips for some journalists in the privileged surroundings here, seem to have taken over? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in a recent letter to The Times, appealed for the restoration of that newspaper as a newspaper of record. I fear that, under its present ownership, there is little prospect of that.

Mr. Tom Cox: This week sees marches and rallies in this country and in many countries throughout the world in remembrance of the brutal invasion of the island of Cyprus by the Turkish army 20 years ago. I am sure that every hon. Member is aware that Cyprus is a member of the British Commonwealth, and that we are one of the guarantor powers for that island.
I know that there are hon. Members on both sides, to their credit, who have been deeply involved in Cyprus since that invasion. They, like me, have seen the continuing talks over the years, during which hopes were built up that, at long last, there would be an honourable settlement, only to see those hopes destroyed—due, without doubt, to the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot spokesman, and the attitude of the Turkish Government in Ankara.
During all these years, we have seen action after action by Mr. Denktash to delay and to destroy any discussion that would lead to the unification of the island. We have seen the actions he has taken and the actions that he still supports. There are thousands of Turkish troops in the occupied northern area of Cyprus and many thousands of Turkish settlers have been brought into northern Cyprus.
Some years ago, we saw the establishment of the so-called "independent state of Northern Cyprus", a state that is recognised only by Turkey of all the countries in the world. To the credit of this Government, they have never been prepared to recognise that independent state created by Mr. Denktash.
Recently, we have had the confidence-building measures under the leadership of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Sadly, they have got nowhere. Recently, the Secretary-General has clearly said whom he blames for the lack of progress in the talks for which he has been responsible. Against that background of 20 years, one


has the right to ask where the British Government stand and what action they will take so that meaningful progress can begin to be made.
I am a member of the Council of Europe. Two years ago, a Spanish deputy, Mr. Cuco, a member of the Council of Europe, was requested by the Council to produce a report on the illegal settlers in northern Cyprus. He clearly stated in his report that the presence of the illegal settlers in the north of the island would make a settlement far more difficult. He also clearly said that the people brought from mainland Turkey were deeply resented by true Turkish Cypriots.
Despite that report, and despite all the years during which the Turkish mainland settlers were brought to northern Cyprus, what did the British Government do? The answer, clearly and regrettably, is nothing.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman above all is the great champion, quite rightly, of this good cause. Does he agree that the island must be united to be properly economically viable, and that the Turkish Government should now heed international public opinion? The sooner the island is reunited, the better for all of us.

Mr. Cox: I totally agree with the hon. Member. He also has a superb record on Cyprus. He has given me the opportunity to make this point. Whichever party we belong to, we work for a united Cyprus. We do not work for the benefit of the Greek Cypriots. We work for a united Cyprus for the benefit of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots whose home is on the island of Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman is so right in his comments.
I recently attended a meeting in Strasbourg of the political affairs committee of the Council of Europe. The committee had invited representatives of the political parties in Cyprus—the Greek parties and the Turkish parties—to come to Strasbourg to outline what they saw as a possible settlement.
It was extremely regrettable that, within moments of the Turkish Cypriot representatives starting to speak, it became clear that they did not want a settlement. They made comments such as, "Turkish troops under no circumstances will leave the island." They also said that, if Turkey became a member of the European Union, the Turkish Cypriots would do everything in their power to obstruct and cause problems if Cyprus was allowed to become a member of the European Union.
I have to say that the Prime Minister's statement in the House on the recent Corfu summit, on 27 June, in which he replied to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), has given great comfort to Mr. Denktash and to Turkey. The Prime Minister said that, unless there was a settlement, Cyprus would not be supported in its application for entry to the European Union.
I shall read out a few brief quotations that will clearly show the House the attitude that Turkey repeatedly takes on the issue of Cyprus. The speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, addressing a meeting of the Ankara Chamber of Commerce on 25 April this year, said:
Turkey's rights in Cyprus stem from International Law and the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus is a consequence of this. Turkey cannot endanger itself with regard to the Cyprus issue without any return.

Mr. Denktash, to whom I have already referred, said of the Greek Cypriots on a radio programme on 10 May this year:
If they become EU members then as of their membership date we join Turkey and the issue ends there. The Turkish Grand National Assembly should enact a resolution and declare our union with Turkey the very moment that the Greek Cypriots become an EU members. There is no other alternative.
The final quotation is from Mr. Ecevit, the leader of the Democratic party of Turkey. He said in an interview on 25 June this year:
On 20 July 1974 peace came to Cyprus. As far as the Turkish Cypriots are concerned the problem was solved that day.
Against that background, what action are the Government to take? I again remind the House that we are one of the guarantor powers of the island of Cyprus. For years, many of us, irrespective of party, who have questioned the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of the day have been told that the British Government fully support the efforts of the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations recently expressed his views. Do we support those views? If we do, surely now is the time for the Government to act and to support his work.
In a decision by the European Court of Justice taken earlier this month, bans were imposed against any Turkish Cypriot citrus fruits and potatoes being allowed into countries of the European Union. I ask the Leader of the House whether the British Government support that ruling. If they do, I hope that they will say so, loud and clear.
Twenty years have passed. Cyprus is the only country in Europe that is still divided by a wall: that is the tragic indictment of the lack of meaningful progress over those long 20 years in resolving the tragedy of Cyprus. When shall we hear the Government's views and their proposals for ending the tragedy? When shall we see the reunification of the island of Cyprus?
As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said, and as I said in my reply to him, all of us in the House who are interested in the future of Cyprus are interested in the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish Cypriots. We look for answers from the Government to end this continuing tragedy, which has brought such appalling poverty and problems, certainly to northern Cyprus, and which has brought great heartache to the people of Cyprus. When will that tragedy end, and when will the island of Cyprus be reunited? When will the prosperity that it can achieve start to be developed?

Sir Anthony Grant: While not agreeing with everything that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said, I must say that no hon. Member has fought so vigorously over many years for his Cypriot constituents as the hon. Gentleman.
Before the House rises, I wish to raise a matter under the Financial Services Act 1986. As the House will recall, the Act was, in the words of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury as recently as 3 May 1994 in a letter to me:
to provide a high standard of protection for investors".
Under the Act, the Securities and Investments Board was set up as the overall umbrella, and a whole series of self-regulating organisations such as FIMBRA—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—were set up under that board.
Recently, a new body to embrace all those self-regulating organisations—the Personal Investment


Authority—was set up. After a rather shaky start, it began operating on only Monday this week. It has received 3,666 applications for membership, and I have been told that 1,139 firms have been admitted. I am glad that a firm in my constituency, Stuart and Verity, was one of the first to be admitted.
The problem arises over a firm which describes itself in an advertisement as:
Britain's Leading Retirement Income Specialists".
I refer to the firm of Knight Williams and Co. Ltd. The company says that it handles £500 million-worth of investments for 24,000 people. I should make it absolutely clear at the start that I am not making any accusations whatever of any dishonesty on the part of that firm. However, I wish to draw attention to the difficulties that a great number of people have experienced over the years, having used the firm's services.
In advertisements in 1989 and 1990, the firm made statements such as:
We can help you earn a high regular monthly income
and
We can show you how to provide for the capital growth you will need to keep pace with the cost of living over the coming years".
A nice Larry cartoon showed a post man trying to put a fat cheque through the letter box and the key point made by the firm was that it would provide income, growth and peace of mind.
On the basis of those advertisements, my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Jordan, a retired couple, invested some £32,500 in January 1990, and also paid £5,500 in initial charges. After four and a half years, their investment is worth £27,300, so they have lost substantially on any basis. They are deeply concerned about, and have investigated, the way in which Knight Williams conducts its affairs. That has attracted the attention of the press.
In February 1994, The Sunday Telegraph carried out a considerable investigation and pointed out:
"An IFA"—
independent financial adviser—
is meant to recommend products from across the market. But most of Knight Williams' new business ends up in its own unit trusts. These carry some of the highest charges in the unit trust industry—6.375 per cent. initial and 2.5 per cent. annual".
A minute from the firm described how its salesmen should operate. One of the categories of salesmen listed was:
the 'Clever Dick' who 'sells non KW', is 'disruptive' and a 'compliance nightmare'.
The minute says that the way to deal with such salesmen is to make them toe the line. The article in The Sunday Telegraph included the view taken by a leading stock broker:
It must be difficult for a Knight Williams salesman not to recommend in-house products. These funds may perform well in spite of high charges but are they a function of independent financial advice? I fear not".
Lest it should seem that I am engaged in an attack on a rival of any sort, I declare an interest in Barclays bank which is a financial adviser. But there is no question whatever of any competition or rivalry in that respect; it is entirely a constituency matter which I am raising.
My constituents referred the matter to the SIB and FIMBRA, but the only course that could be taken under the rules was to go to arbitration. In his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Mr. Jordan said:
The process of arbitration is a veritable minefield fraught with difficulties for lay people. It is, for better or worse, an adversarial

procedure which means that independent financial advisers defending a complaint from a lay member of the public are able to flex their legal and financial muscles because only they have the necessary economic resources to do so.
If the unfortunate investor fails before arbitration, the SIB can only suggest that he has recourse through the courts, which is enormously expensive. The SIB can give orders to FIMBRA only if it has breached its rules, and FIMBRA can punish the company in question only if it has breached the rules. My constituent therefore ran up against a brick wall.
Since then, more than 40 Members of Parliament have received similar complaints from their constituents about Knight Williams. Most of the constituents are elderly retired people who are seeking to provide for their old age by following the advice given by that firm. So far as I could work out from letters from hon. Members, nearly all the constituents have suffered financial losses in the process. I have taken the matter up—as, indeed, have more than 40 hon. Members—with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has taken a close interest in the matter. The Treasury Select Committee has also taken a close interest in the matter, and it has had evidence, certainly from my constituent, which it is carefully considering.
As a result of the concerns expressed not only by me but by many other hon. Members, an early-day motion was tabled yesterday in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and other distinguished hon. Members, expressing the House's concern at the number of complaints received by hon. Members from their constituents, many of whom are retired people, and the apparent inability of SIB and/or FIMBRA to bring full light to bear on the subject. I should make it clear that although the PIA is now operating, it is not taking over earlier cases; they must be cleared up by the old self-regulating organisations. Early-day motion 1545 also urged the Government to institute a thorough inquiry into the whole matter.
Without making any accusations of dishonesty, I am asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to pursue his inquiries to bring light to bear on the whole matter in the interests of a large number of constituents, to examine the way in which the Financial Services Act is operating and to question whether there is any better way in which redress can be obtained for these unfortunate constituents.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Before the House adjourns, I should like to urge upon the Government the need for a strategy for breast cancer, both at health care and research level.
I am the joint chair of a newly formed all-party group on breast cancer. During the past few months we have taken evidence from some of the most eminent clinicians and scientists. Their evidence has led me to conclude that the interests of patients would be best served if the Government took the approach of establishing a national action plan on breast cancer, similar to that established in America last year.
Breast cancer is a major killer of women in this country. One in 12 women are affected by it and nearly 30,000 new cases are diagnosed every year, which is about 480 a week. Nearly 16,000 deaths occur every year, which is equivalent to one woman dying every 30 minutes. Worldwide, the


figures are no better. It is the biggest cancer killer in the world, with 250,000 deaths a year from breast cancer. Those are devastating statistics.
What is even more worrying is the growth in that disease. Some weeks ago, Professor Baum of the Royal Marsden hospital told our committee:
We are losing the war against breast cancer. Any modest improvements in case survival or mortality rates are being eclipsed by the real increase in the incidence of the disease. Sadly the foot soldiers in this war are the women themselves and I am convinced that if the battle is to be won in the long term then the lay public have to be reminded well in advance of them developing the disease that the responsibility for seeking its cure must be shared between the public and the profession alike.
This week, Professor Gusterson of the Institute of Cancer Research and Professor Adrian Harris of the John Radcliffe hospital, Oxford, put to the all-party group the case for a national action plan on breast cancer and they were extremely convincing. They referred to what happened in America after a petition from 2.6 million Americans calling for a comprehensive plan to end the breast cancer epidemic was presented to President Clinton.
Shortly afterwards, President Clinton announced that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, would convene a conference to develop a national action plan on breast cancer. From its inception, that conference was intended to involve the whole spectrum of individuals, groups and organisations concerned with this awful disease.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most alarming things that the professors told us on Tuesday was not only that the money spent on research into cancer in Britain was less than that spent in America and other European countries, but that although the majority of funding in those countries is provided by their Governments, only one tenth of British funding is provided by our Government while nine tenths comes from charity? Is that not appalling? It is also borne out in Scotland, where, of 11 consultant oncologists—too small a number in itself—seven are funded by charities.

Mrs. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend. All those consultants should be funded by the national health service if they are treating national health patients.
Invitations to the conference in America were sent to 150 representatives from advocacy groups, consumers, academics, scientists, educationists, health care specialists as well as to people who had suffered from breast cancer. The participants worked together in a unique, unprecedented partnership and produced an excellent policy document entitled "A National Action Plan on Breast Cancer", containing eminently sensible suggestions which make an effort to tackle the epidemic.
Even more exciting was the fact that, following the conference, the United States Department of Defence produced a grant of $210 million for a breast cancer research programme and within a short time that plan was up and running. What a wonderful way to spend the peace dividend—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) has said, the comparison with the amount of money devoted to research in Britain should make us ashamed of the pittance that is offered here.
The problem with funding research in Britain is, as my hon. Friend said, that it is mainly offered by charities and is not supplied by the Government. In any event, that source of Government revenue is badly affected in a recession. An added problem has been caused by the

introduction of changes in the NHS and the fragmentation of a national comprehensive service. Professor Harris told our group that another worrying factor for people who want to conduct research into this killer disease is that trusts are now reluctant to store material from biopsies in pathology laboratories because of the cost of storage. That valuable material will, however, be needed urgently for future research.
I hope to persuade the all-party cancer group that we should launch a national petition to get the Government to adopt a national plan on breast cancer. Something urgent needs to be done to combat a major killer of women in this country. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise this important matter before the House adjourns.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: A year ago, on the last day of the summer term, I raised in an Adjournment debate the immense problems facing the British brewing industry —in which I declare a modest interest—arising from, among other problems, the ridiculous burden of excise duty on beer which our European competitors do not have to carry. That burden is seriously weakening the industry.
Since that debate, I must unhappily report that the situation has not improved. The industry—of which my Burton constituency is, of course, the centre, with great names such as Ind Coope, Marstons and Bass—employs 3,000 of my constituents directly and many thousands indirectly. It also plays a vital part in Britain's economy because, in all, it employs about 900,000 people—more than the number employed in the construction industry, three times as many as in the energy and water industries and five times the number in the motor industry.
Consumers spend £13.5 billion a year on beer, which is more than they spend on cars, clothing, electricity, gas, coal and all sorts of other durable goods. The industry provides Government with £4.3 billion a year, which is equivalent to 3p on income tax. The British pub is a national institution, which is patronised by one third of adults once a week, and 70 per cent. of tourists prefer the British pub to their own bars back home.
The British brewing industry has doubled its output in the past five years; yet we are penalising it—and ourselves —excessively and unjustly. Alarmingly, as beer sales through the on-trade have fallen by 27 per cent.—from 38 million barrels in 1979 to 28 million today—beer duty has gone up 36 per cent. and the sales taxes beer by 59 per cent. while wine and spirits have enjoyed an almost equivalent decrease in tax and beer duty paid by our European partners has remained static.
We in Britain consume 21 per cent. of all the beer drunk in the European Community; yet we pay 55 per cent. of the Community's beer duty. That is preposterous. There is no doubt that taxation is a major cause—I accept that it is not the only cause—of the decline in the market. Germans pay only 4p a pint in beer duty, the French and the Belgians pay 5p and 8p respectively, but we in Britain are required to pay 33p. That enormous differential and the fact that the limit for personal imports from France and elsewhere on the continent has risen to 110 litres—that is the amount that each of us can bring into the United Kingdom for personal consumption—has brought about the phenomenon of cross-border shopping.
Passenger car movements via Dover rose by 12 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. More people than ever are


buying their beer abroad. Truckloads of beer, purchased by Britons in Calais, are being brought back to the UK and British beer sales in pubs throughout the country have fallen by 1 million pints a day. It appears that 39 per cent. of licensees believe that the importation of beer has affected the use of their pubs; 26 per cent. of them have seen a decrease in their trade, 31 per cent. of them say that if the problem continues and grows they will reduce staff hours, 24 per cent. say that they will work even longer hours and 18 per cent. say that they will move out of the business.
Even more alarming is the growth of criminal bootlegging. On 18 May The Independent quoted a Customs and Excise investigator who said:
When the single market opened up on 1 January 1993 the trade in cheap beer was carried out by young Jack the lads flogging the stuff at car boot sales. But now organised criminals are involved with outlets at nightclubs, off licences, working mens' clubs and illicit drinking dens.
The seriousness of that aspect was confirmed last week to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the head of the national criminal intelligence service, whose main concern is organised crime. This new situation is serious and it is becoming worse.
The Government have helped a little, but hardly enough. In the past year, since my previous short debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was worried by cross-border shopping, has ensured that there has been no increase in duty on beer or spirits. He took that decision in last year's Budget, when there was only a 1.9 per cent. increase in duty on any alcoholic drink. The Government have also been trying to increase the harmonisation of excise duties at the Council of Ministers. Realistically, however, any plea to other countries to raise their excise duties to the levels which prevail in the UK is unlikely to fall on receptive ears. Nor do we want to remove from nation states the right to fix their own tax rates.
What can be done to stop the decline in our brewing industry? My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General told me in a letter that I received two days ago that Customs and Excise has calculated that a reduction in excise duty to French and German levels would lead to Revenue receipt losses of between £3 billion and £4 billion. Clearly that could not be countenanced.
The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—the successor to the Brewers Society—commissioned the Henley centre to establish the accuracy of the Customs and Excise assessment. The centre found that a 50 per cent. reduction in duty to 16p would lead to a price reduction which would reverse the downward trend in the beer market and substantially increase revenues other than beer tax by, for example, increasing employment in brewing, clubs and pubs as well as in the supply of goods and services by a total of about 90,000 by 1999.
At the same time, it would reduce the duty lost to the UK by payments of duty to France, Germany and elsewhere and generate an additional £300 million for the Government by 1997. It would benefit the Exchequer by £1 billion by 1999. The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the brewers themselves have observed that when on two previous occasions this century Governments

reduced beer duty to revive sales—by 37 per cent. in 1933 and 28 per cent. in 1959—the beer sales market turned up and the industry returned to long-term growth.
Before the House rises for the summer recess, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Customs and Excise to look again at their figures in the light of the work undertaken by the Henley centre and to consider whether it is possible to reverse the decline in the brewing industry by a 50 per cent. cut in beer duty. Apart from the gratitude of the industry and of my constituents who depend on the industry, they would have the thanks of the all-party beer group, whose members care very much about the problem.

Mr. David Winnick: As we are soon to embark on a long summer recess, it would surely have been appropriate for the Prime Minister to make a statement about the likely new President of the European Commission. I see in their places my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), who raised the matter in points of order. It seems that they agree with me.
The Prime Minister made much of the fact that he vetoed the candidate he did not like, the Prime Minister of Belgium. He gave the impression that that candidate's views were unacceptable. It is interesting that the person who is now likely to be the new President has made it clear that he shares entirely all the views of the candidate who was vetoed by the Prime Minister, including those on a single currency, more integration and a federal Europe.
Those are the views of Mr. Santer, who is likely to be the new President. If he holds views identical to those of Mr. Dehaene, who was vetoed—he admits he does—why should he be approved by the British Government?
We can come to the conclusion only that as on so many other matters concerning the European Union the Government are prepared to give in—in this instance they did so within a few days—after a display of opposition.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the most recent development? I gather that, within the past few minutes, the British Labour group has voted to reject Mr. Santer.

Mr. Winnick: It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Government. As I have said, if one candidate has been vetoed because of his views, there is no reason why someone else who holds identical views on the future of the European Union should be supported. The attitude of the British Labour Members of the European Parliament may be somewhat different from mine in some respects, but in this instance there may be some consistency. The Government show no consistency.
As we go into the long summer recess, we know that the Government's standing—certainly domestically—is extremely low. We saw that clearly in the Euro and local elections. No one would dispute the fact that the results were not good for the Government.
The Government no doubt think that the reshuffle will help them, but most British people could not care less who is the Minister for this or the Secretary of State for that. They are concerned only about policies and their own position. As most people have been penalised in the past 12


or 18 months by all kinds of extra expenditure, including tax increases, it is understandable that they do not look favourably on the Government, and are unlikely to do so in the future.
Those who earn the most are increasingly rewarding themselves with even more money. Signal workers would have been willing to settle for about 5 per cent., but the Government vetoed that. Had they agreed to it, the dispute could have been settled and today's disruption to train services avoided.
The Guardian index of top executive pay shows that, in the past year, top directors have received average increases of nearly 25 per cent., and even more in some cases. Seven directors receive more than £1 million a year. Last year, Mr. Peter Wood of the Royal Bank of Scotland received £18.5 million. I hope that he somehow manages to make ends meet.
The chief executive of SmithKline Beecham receives some £2 million a year while Glaxo, Barclays, Tompkins, and Kingfisher pay their top directors more than the £1 million mark. The chief executive of Cadbury Schweppes must have felt hard done by, because he received a percentage increase of just under 100 per cent. last year and now gets £852,000 a year. Top directors also receive performance bonuses, generous pensions contributions and share options, which sometimes amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The comparison is so obvious. While those in the public sector have had increases of some 2 per cent.—many people in the private sector have not received much more, and some have had no increase whatever—those on the highest incomes have received substantial increases, despite the fact that the Prime Minister said that he did not approve of them. It seems all the more unfair when the Government are pursuing a wage restraint policy against signalmen and others in the public sector.
Nor should we forget that some of the top earners receive generous assistance when they leave their posts. Only last week, it came to light that the former managing director of Midlands Electricity departed with a compensation and pension package of some £655,000 and share options worth an additional £483,000—over the £1 million mark. Can such generous treatment be justified? The former chairman of the water authority in my area received, on leaving the company, £230,300, plus £500,000 more in compensation for early retirement.
That shows only too well that those with substantial incomes not only receive generous pay increases but, when they leave, they receive the sort of sums that I have mentioned. It is understandable that there is a lot of resentment. Some people may say that it is purely Labour envy but, while the Conservative Members are so strenuously against any form of minimum income and repeat time and again that it is out of the question, they appear to have no objection to maximum incomes. They never deplore the increases in pay to top earners in British industry. Indeed, they show no concern whatever.
The Low Pay Unit found that more than 44 per cent. of the work force in the west midlands were on low pay. That is 4 per cent. higher than the national average. The fact that some 855,000 employees in the west midlands earn less than the low-pay threshold helps to explain the poverty and near-poverty in which hundreds of thousands of people in our community are forced to live.
It is wrong that there should be such a gulf between those who are penalised by unemployment, when

employers simply say, "Take it or leave it," while at the other end of the income scale the fat cats reward themselves, often without justification, with increases such as I have described. Once again, it illustrates the Government's philosophy: indifference to the plight of those on low pay and total opposition to a minimum income policy, but no willingness to take action against those on the highest incomes. I felt that it was only right to raise such matters before we go into the summer recess.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I wish to speak briefly about the problem of deregulation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard me speak on this matter too often to find it amusing.
I was on the Committee that discussed the deregulation Bill upstairs for many days, and in the Chamber on Report and Third Reading. Throughout the Bill's Committee, Report and Third Reading stages, I fully supported all the Bill's objectives. It was a first-class attempt by a Conservative Government to do exactly what we should be doing—strip out some of the more absurd and idiotic regulations. I welcomed, as did many other people, the power which the Bill gave the state to take away those regulations, and I make no excuses for thoroughly supporting that great concept. Hon. Members should be ever vigilant against the over imposition of regulations.
That important Bill is now going through another place. During its passage through this place, I raised the plight of small businesses, and suggested a remedy that had not been included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and I raised the matter both in Committee on 28 April and on Report on the Floor of the House. I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the new clause that we tabled on Report, which appears in the Official Report of 23 May in columns 45–46.
The new clause sought to give business men and women redress against the unfair imposition by officials of regulations which lead to the eventual closure of their businesses. It also sought to give them redress against the imposition of such financial stringency that their businesses either become uncompetitive or eventually close down because, over a prolonged period, those excesses prevent them from trading competitively.
Sometimes that is the result of a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of a regulation, but at other times it is because a regulation has been wilfully imposed on them without any regard for the true nature of the regulation. Either way, the reality remains the same—that regulations result in great difficulty, especially for small business men and women throughout the land.
The argument that I made then, and which I make no excuse for making again, was that those small business men and women are the ones who are least able to speak for themselves. They are the ones on which we dump so much paperwork and regulation that we smother them. The medium-to-large businesses can cope with all that; they simply get another person along to deal with it. They can survive that extra imposition; they have a bit of slack in their cash reserves.
However, the small business men and women do not have those resources. They are the ones to whom we must look to provide the future employment for so many people


who are unemployed throughout the land. We must be extra-specially careful, therefore, not to allow regulations to have that effect on them.
Taking full regard of that, we introduced the new clauses simply to give those small business men and women the right to appeal to a magistrates court against such an unfair imposition. We thought it a reasonable device, and we presented it as such. It would have given the Bill the second leg that was necessary. The first leg was to strip away excess regulation, and the second leg would have been to guard against unfair imposition of regulation.
We were given certain assurances by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who was at that time speaking for the Government, when summing up on Report. He said:
I wish to try especially to provide an appeals mechanism that is quick, effective and cost-effective and will not create a new bureaucracy".
He went on to say:
If my hon. Friend withdraws his clause and the matter goes to another place, the basis of the debate there will consequently be more informed. I fully support what my hon. Friend wants to achieve".—[Official Report, 23 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 69 and 70.]
Being the very decent man that he is, my hon. Friend did just that, and we therefore complied and withdrew the new clause, on the basis that the Bill would be improved by the addition of such a clause during its passage through the other place.
I therefore draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the problem that appears to exist at the moment in introducing the new clause.
True to his word, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton passed the matter to the deregulation task force, headed by Francis Maude—who was a colleague and who, I hope, will return to this place as a colleague—to consider the possibilities. The task force has considered it, and it appears it has handed the matter over to an official, to go away and put together a mechanism that could be properly implemented.
I understand that the official is now complaining that, first, there may not be enough time to put that mechanism into the Bill, and secondly, that there are some worries about the judicial approach. I also understand that the deregulation task force has essentially decided that the only way to solve the problem is to take the course that we proposed—the judicial route. It is simple and effective, and does not require extra bureaucracy.
I do not pretend to try to re-argue the case. All I am trying to do is to say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, in all good faith, men and women throughout the land had looked to us to find some form of redress.
We presented the Government with an opportunity. The Government, decently, said that they would consider it. I am worried that, if officials are allowed to say that it may be too difficult, we might not eventually include that mechanism in the Bill. If we do not, it will be a great failing for us here in the House, because we shall have failed the very people that we were sent here to support—the job creators, the people who will do the great job we want in providing new employment.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, please, please, would he speak to everyone who is concerned with that matter, and give them a sense of

urgency? If we do nothing else but put that into the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, we shall represent that vast group of people out there, the ones who cannot speak for themselves, the small business men and women. They will thank us, and rightly. It will be the right thing to do. I urge my right hon. Friend to do just that.

Mr. John Denham: I suggest that the House should not adjourn before we have had further opportunity to discuss the gathering crisis that hangs over the pensions of many people who depend on personal pensions. I should declare an interest in that subject, as a small part of my research assistant's salary is funded by the National Union of Insurance Workers.
As the Financial Times commented in an article on 15 July,
It has not been a good year for personal pensions".
That is an understatement. In the past year, there has been a series of damaging revelations about the personal pensions industry. It has become obvious that up to 500,000 people may have been wrongly advised to opt out of occupational pension schemes, and that more than 2 million people may have been wrongly advised to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
The pensions industry companies have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Personal Investments Authority, whose birth this week has, to say the least, been surrounded by almost complete scepticism. Merely a brief examination of the Order Paper of the past few days will show that there are no fewer than three early-day motions, tabled by Members on both sides of the House, highlighting failures in the regulatory system. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) referred to one of them earlier.
A succession of firms with household names, such as Norwich Union, Legal and General, Nationwide and now Barclays, have either had to suspend their sales staff for retraining or have been fined by regulators for the blatant mismanagement of sales practices.
It is therefore not surprising that, in the first quarter of this year, there was a dramatic drop in the sale of personal pensions—a fall of nearly 160,000 compared with the same quarter in the previous year.
The rows about bad management of the industry and ineffective regulation can obscure an even more fundamental problem. There are, in my view, sound reasons for most people to plan their pensions as a combination of state and non-state provision. The reality today is that many—probably most—working people who are outside secure occupational pension schemes will not be making sufficient provision to ensure that they receive a pension that they or anyone else will regard as adequate when they retire.
State pensions, including the SERPS element, will be too low for most of those people who depend entirely on them. Half the people who opted out of SERPS for appropriate personal pensions have an income so small that they would almost certainly have been better off in SERPS, and of all those with an appropriate personal pension, 60 per cent. are only putting in their national insurance rebate and are not making any additional contribution from their income.
Not only are many people with personal pensions underprovided; they often do not persist with the policy. As long ago as 1991, the Securities and Investments Board


revealed that a third of personal pensions are terminated or paid up within two years. At that time, the Consumers Association calculated that losses to investors through front-loaded commission charges and early penalty surrenders were running at £250 million a year—the equivalent of an annual Maxwell scandal. That was as long ago as 1991.
I recently completed a survey of 44 of the top pensions companies, asking about their lapse rates and termination rates. Of those 44 companies, only 13 were prepared to provide any information about the early cancellation of their policies, and all those that did so emphasised that there is still no industry-wide standard for providing that information. Of the 13 who were prepared to speak about the lapses in their policies, almost all said that one in five of their policies lapsed in some manner after two years. For most, between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of all the personal pensions that they sold lapsed in the first five years.
That highlights several serious problems. First, the difficulty of getting hold of that information from most companies means that one of the most useful indicators of the quality of the pension policy and the quality of the advice given by the insurance company is not available to the consumer.
A second problem is highlighted. We keep hearing Government statistics that 5 million people have personal pension policies, which implies that those policies will be kept until they mature and the policyholders will be able to retire on their proceeds. But it is clear that only a minority of those who buy personal pension policies see them through to full term. Many people with personal pension policies will keep them for only a short time, will lose a great deal of money on them and, ultimately, will not have adequate pensions.
There are, sadly, few signs that the Government have even begun to grasp the scale and scope of the problem. Attempts have been made, very belatedly, to tighten up the regulatory structure, with the formation of the Personal Investment Authority, but I believe that that authority will turn out to be only a staging post on the route to a more satisfactory system of statutory regulation. My concern is that regulation of the industry, however it is conducted, is still approached purely as an attempt to control the way in which products are sold. The regulation does not cover the quality of those products.
It is clear that many people who buy personal pensions buy policies that, for one reason or another, they cannot continue to full term, so they lose much of the money that they had hoped to put aside for their pension. Our regulation needs to focus far more on the quality of the products sold, establishing minimum standards of quality to protect those people who will depend on them for their pensions.
I raise my concerns about the personal pensions industry not because I seek to rubbish the industry, but because I recognise that there will be, for the foreseeable future, a category of people who cannot obtain occupational pensions and who would be ill advised to rely purely on state pensions. An essential element of future pensions policy must be to ensure that the personal pensions industry is run correctly.
There are several spheres in which the Government have not shown sufficient energy or action. They must assume responsibility for ensuring that people are properly covered by future pension provision. The Government

have wasted the best part of £10 billion on encouraging people to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. Many of those people will be no better off, and some will be worse off, as a result of opting out. Many of them will be entitled to opt back into SERPS, so the £10 billion will have produced little benefit to anyone.
The Government have not yet highlighted to individuals how much money they should be putting aside towards some form of non-state pension if they want to achieve a certain level of retirement income. The time has come for the Government to take responsibility for giving an indication of those figures, which would have two benefits.
First, it would raise awareness of the cost of pension planning and shatter the complacent view held by too many people that simply having a personal pension must mean that it will generate sufficient retirement income for them. Secondly, highlighting the cost of private provision would encourage a better and more reasonable debate about the balance to be struck between tax-funded state pensions and non-state provision funded from people's incomes.
In addition, the Government should regularly conduct a national representative survey of the pension provision that individuals have made for themselves and, from that, project the level of pensions that people will receive. That is not done at present, but it would give us a much clearer idea of what those people's pensions will be in 20 or 30 years time, and could provide the basis of future policy development.
The role of regulation should be broadened so that we not only regulate how policies are sold, but ensure that the quality of policies is consistently pushed upwards.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: It will be no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I intend to raise yet again the subject of the channel tunnel rail link. First, and significantly on this day, I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) who had the political courage and intellectual strength to reject Union Railways' proposal for a tunnel under Pepper Hill at Northfleet in my constituency. Thanks to the public campaign run by the residents of Northfleet and the conclusions of a geological survey on noise and vibration, a strong case was developed, which I took to my right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Transport, and to which he gave careful consideration.
It would have been in the personal interest of my right hon. Friend to take a strong, firm decision at that stage to announce the route of the channel tunnel rail link from London St. Pancras to the channel tunnel at Cheriton. He could have taken a firm decision and told my constituents at Northfleet to lump it, but he did not. He understood the intellectual case put to him and told Union Railways to go back to the drawing board. That has resulted in an improved route, which skirts Pepper Hill, and I believe that that new route will be one of my right hon. Friend's lasting mementos. I also pay tribute to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who was Minister of State throughout the saga.
A number of problems remain. I want to highlight the site of special scientific interest at Ashenbank wood and Cobham park—the latter is part of our national heritage and was laid out by Repton. I recently convened a meeting at Cobham hall of local councils and environmental


organisations at which we considered environmental mitigation. We have now been advised that Union Railways has redesigned the route at that point to a level 4 m lower and has agreed to our request to carry out a geological survey, which we believe will prove that United Railways' plans in that terrain of loose gravel and combustible lignite would not be wise.
Gravesham borough council will, at our request, provide professional consultants to assess the situation. I should like the tunnel to be designed through the chalk beneath because that would overcome the engineering problems caused by the geology as well as the environmental desecration that would be caused by the current proposal. The cost of that environmental improvement and other lesser improvements should be assessed.
I pay tribute to our previous Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Ben Patterson, who, over 15 years, was an excellent member of the European Parliament. Until the European elections, he led an effective campaign to harness significant grants under the environmental programmes of the European Commission. I expect his Labour successor as Member of the European Parliament to see that campaign through. I have written to that gentleman, Mr. Skinner, and to date he has been conspicuous by his silence. He has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter, let alone do anything about the problem.
Another problem is the fact that the safeguarding is drawn far too tightly. The boundary of the safeguarding zone at Gravesend skirts five properties—four at Longview, in Henhurst road, Cobham and the Lodge at Scalers hill. That is unfair as it leaves the houses, which are sandwiched between the A2 motorway and the proposed channel tunnel rail link route, in a position that will become progressively more unbearable. The properties should be included in the safeguarding zone now. In the interim, I thank Union Railways because, following my strong representations, it has agreed to buy out two of the properties at Longview on compassionate and health grounds. I wonder why it will not put the whole matter in order by including all five properties.
I should like there to be a noise assessment of the channel tunnel rail link crossing at the Wrotham road, A227, and its effect on the village of 'stead Rise and the houses at the tollgate. If we are to have such a major project we must ensure that we make the right decision now.
We still await an announcement adopting Ebbsfleet as the intermediate international station. That is an obvious location because it would serve well travellers resident in south-east London, Kent, Essex, Surrey and Sussex. Were the proposal for Ebbsfleet international to go ahead, it would mean thousands of new jobs for Gravesham and new roads for Northfleet. Northfleet town would effectively be bypassed and it would give my constituents better house values. Until now, the channel tunnel rail link has marked down house prices in that area of Northfleet. I believe that the announcement of an international station at Ebbsfleet would mark them up.

Mr. Bob Dunn: My hon. Friend referred to Pepper Hill. Like him, I hope for an early announcement of an international station on the Ebbsfleet site. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern that the construction of

the rail link and the infrastructure connected with the Ebbsfleet station will cause immense problems for the local roads infrastructure, not least disruption to the A2, with the consequent movement of cars on to the lanes of Southfleet at Longfield, New Barn and Betsham. Will my hon. Friend join me in pressing the Department of Transport for a proper plan and timetable for infrastructure improvements?

Mr. Arnold: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. If we are successful in getting the international station for the Ebbsfleet valley between our two constituencies, there will be further challenges—for example, the work sites and how construction will be carried out with minimum disruption. There will also be the challenges of ensuring that we protect the environment at the Ebbsfleet water course, that archaeological studies of the Roman remains are carried out in advance and that the sports facilities at the proposed location for the station are fully replaced to serve the public in that area.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I want briefly to comment on local government reforms. We must not lose sight of the fact that the objective of the reforms is local delivery of services, subject to local decision taking and at the best manageable cost. Against that criterion, I believe that Kent county council is inevitably found wanting, stretching as it does from the London boundaries to Thanet and Dover and southwards into the Weald. It is far too remote.
To the credit of the council's previous Conservative administration, it recognised the problem and set up local area offices. In my area of north-west Kent it set up an administrative office at Gravesend. Nevertheless, decision taking at Maidstone remains far too remote. The present Liberal and Labour-controlled council has taken some very insensitive decisions and there has been much neglect.
There are some dreadful examples of that. The council is currently bulldozing through the Wainscott bypass in the face of opposition from the people of Higham. It is neglecting the people of Old Denton by the failure to build the east Gravesend access road, which would take lorries out of Old Denton and provide good access to Comma Oil, the Norfolk road industrial estate and Denton wharf. It is neglecting the people of Northfleet by not building the fourth phase of the Thameside industrial route, which would effectively provide a Northfleet bypass.
The council has opposed every application for grant-maintained status for schools in the face of votes in favour as high as 90 per cent. among the local parents. Therefore, I welcome the decision announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education to approve the application by St. Joseph's Roman Catholic school at Northfleet.
I should like there to be a unitary council for north-west Kent, based on Gravesend and covering the existing area of the education and social services and also of the health district. That would achieve real local government, a unitary council with no confusion of responsibilities, minimum transitional disruption for the principal local government services—education and social services—and, at last, local decision making on our side of the north downs.
Some self-seeking local councillors concerned with their own personal bailiwicks have suggested that a north-west Kent unitary council would drag us into London and cover our green belt with concrete. That


self-interested scaremongering is absolutely shameless. Those claims could not be further from the truth. Kent is an historic county. We have our traditions—our Lord Lieutenant, our High Sheriff, our cricket team and our 101 voluntary organisations. There is no proposal from anyone to extend the county of Greater London. Indeed, Kent-wide co-operation can be achieved by a revitalised Kent association of district councils.
The metropolitan green belt is safeguarded by law, by planning decisions and even by the east Thames corridor study. In Gravesham it is well and truly laid out and safeguarded south of the A2, to the east of Riverview park and Chalk and to the south of the former. We shall be robust. Gravesham borough council is robust, and a north-west Kent unitary council would be likewise.
I oppose the favoured proposal of the Local Government Commission for two unitary councils, North-West Kent and Medway Towns, with the remainder of the county based on two-tier administration. That option of the Local Government Commission is a half-measure and a soggy compromise. We should have a proud county of Kent served by six unitary councils, co-operating in a revitalised Kent association of district councils. I hope that my constituents will join me in pressing for the Local Government Commission's third option.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: It would be inappropriate for the House to adjourn before it has had the chance to consider the need to reduce road traffic, especially in view of the recent report on the increase in cases of asthma and the likely link between that and air pollution.
That issue has concentrated people's minds on road traffic. Indeed, it has been suggested that asthma levels among children have doubled over the past 10 years—the same period over which there has been a doubling in the number of private and light goods vehicles on the road. That cannot be entirely coincidental.
It is clear that the advantages in personal mobility and convenience of increased road traffic are being vastly outweighed by the negative effects. Indeed, the advantages are already cancelled out by congestion. If current predictions of a 35 per cent. increase in road traffic by the year 2000 and a doubling by the year 2020 are fulfilled, road traffic will be a monster running out of control. That monster must be tamed.
Asthma is only one of the health effects of the constant increase in road traffic. A Lancaster university report estimates that up to 15 million people in Britain could be suffering from health problems as a result of road traffic near their homes. That is a figure that we do not remember often enough. At the same time, there are almost 4,000 deaths each year on our roads and 40,000 throughout the European Union. Those are horrific figures. There is no conceivable ethical justification for allowing such carnage. The financial cost of road accidents is estimated at £8 billion annually—a huge sum.
The environmental effects of increasing road traffic are already very serious and they are set to become disastrous. We know about the loss of open countryside, the loss of habitats and therefore the biodiversity that constitutes a great part of the wealth of our planet.
Road traffic is an increasingly significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. By the year 2000, road traffic

will be emitting 23 per cent. of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide, very effectively undermining the Government's commitment to stabilise at 1990 levels by the year 2000. That commitment is a hopelessly and, in my view, grotesquely inadequate response to the immense threat posed by global warming and the need recognised internationally to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. in the near future.
Road traffic is also a profligate consumer of resources. It takes up 80 per cent. of the energy used in transport, which in turn is responsible for 33 per cent. of all energy consumption in the United Kingdom. Together with domestic energy, the total comes to more than 50 per cent. It imposes massive costs in terms of road building and insufficiently recognised costs in terms of the quality of community life.
There are costs too in terms of social inequality. After all, 35 per cent. of all households do not have access to a car and 53 per cent. of women do not have a driving licence. Those categories of people are disadvantaged by the inadequate provision of public transport which is exacerbated in turn by the fact that other people who have access to a car over-use it.
Something needs to be done, but what? Technology can play its part in reducing some of the environmental damage, but that reduction is bound to be limited. There is no bucking the need to reduce the use of the car and other forms of road transport.
How can that be done? It is clear that we need a United Kingdom-wide strategy with targets set by the relevant Secretaries of State. Stabilisation by 2000 at 1990 levels would be both modest and achievable, although many would say that that was an inadequate target, with a 5 per cent. reduction by 2005 and a 10 per cent. reduction by 2010.
The principle of target setting is supported by the CBI and increasingly supported even by people who have in the past been associated with the road lobby. According to a recent survey in the Observer, Michael Roberts, the CBI's transport policy adviser, said:
Traffic growth produces congestion which produces further roads which produces more growth and more congestion. It is a vicious circle that must be broken.
Achieving such targets would involve a major cultural change. That needs to be understood. It would have far-reaching implications for economic policy in an economy which is so strongly dependent on growth in car production, and so on. But it is the kind of change that would bring Government policy and economic policy more into line with the Rio idea of sustainable development. I am glad to see that the Labour party's environment policy published today begins to address the need for a change of direction. 
Such a cultural change can be brought about only through widespread public involvement and community debate. Cultural change must involve collaboration and debate between people in the communities. That process should be led by our local authorities. They are or will soon be drawing up their local Agenda 21s, part of the Rio process. They will be considering how to move towards sustainable development at a local level.
Transport policy and reduction in road traffic should be integral to the process of drawing up local Agenda 21s. It should be a statutory requirement for local authorities to show how they propose to meet the specific traffic reduction targets in their areas.
There is no shortage of ideas about how that can be done. Certain German cities, such as Frieburg and Bextehude, have managed significantly to reduce car use and the accompanying pollution which car ownership has increased. Greater ownership reduced use.
Local authorities and the Government would benefit from study of the excellent document of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, "Wales needs transport not traffic", which sets out a broad range of policy proposals from revamping existing cost-benefit analysis assumptions to provisions such as encouraging cycling and improved integrated timetabling of public transport. A great deal can be done at local level in a practical way.
Everything is to be gained from an active debate at local level on the need for change in transport policy, but the Government must give a lead. That is why I presented recently to Parliament the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, prepared and supported by the Green party, Friends of the Earth and Plaid Cymru. It is a subject to which I shall be returning during the recess and after when I return to traffic-jammed London in the autumn. I hope to find wide support for the Bill from all corners of the House. That support can currently be registered by signing early-day motion 1520.
I am confident that this is an idea whose time has come. It is a theme that needs addressing now. I am confident that there will be widespread support for it throughout society. I hope that we shall have a positive response from the Government. I hope that we shall not find the same lack of vision and obsession with short-term considerations that we saw with the Energy Conservation Bill which was destroyed by exactly the same process as was described earlier by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. We need a more progressive and illuminated approach than that.

Mr. John Greenway: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, I suspect, all other hon. Members, I am looking forward to the recess, not least because it gives us the chance to have a holiday and the opportunity to pursue other things, whether within our constituencies or in other areas of special interest that are more difficult for those of us with constituencies a long way from London to pursue when the House is sitting.
However, another reason why I am looking forward to the recess is that I believe that during the next three months there will be yet more economic good news. We shall see low inflation maintained, continuation of the steady economic growth that we are now enjoying, and the further shrinkage of the dole queues, with unemployment falling. All that, I hasten to suggest, particularly if the good weather that we are enjoying at the moment continues, will lead to a continuing improvement in the Government's fortunes.
But that is not what I wanted to say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That is just a little warm-up for something that will not be quite so welcome in certain sections of the Government. I want to refer to my growing concern about the funding of education in North Yorkshire.
The most important of all changes in our Government that have been announced so far today is the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) as Secretary of State for Education. I cannot think of anyone better qualified to do the job. She was an education officer for many years in Norfolk and then was the local education authority chairman. I am sure that she will bring into play her vast experience of funding schools in a rural area such as Norfolk, which is not that different from north Yorkshire.
The needs of education funding in our shire counties are not being given the importance that they deserve. Only last week, the Select Committee on Education published its report on the disparity in funding between primary and secondary schools. Much of what I read in that report seemed to coincide with and reflect the growing concerns expressed to me by head teachers, particularly in the primary sector, during the past three or four years.
One reason why education funding in large rural counties such as North Yorkshire is a problem is that the standard spending assessment does not reflect the needs of sparsity. In a nutshell, the problem is that we have to fund a large number of small primary schools in rural areas. It is all very well to suggest that a number of those schools should close, but some are several miles away from each other and it would cost a great deal of money to carry on with the policy that we began a few years ago of closing three or four small schools and opening one new one. That policy has been successful where it could be carried out, but while small rural schools exist—they are extremely popular with parents and local communities—they are a significant drain on the education budget, with the result that the funding of some of the larger primary and junior schools is significantly less than it is in inner-city areas.
The consequence is there for all to see. The primary school in the village in which I live, for example, has 395 pupils on roll. Interestingly, that was the number in 1988 when the school had a complement of 16 teachers. This year, the number is down to 13.6 and is likely to fall further. At the same time, the school has accumulated a £21,000 deficit through local management of schools. The LMS formula in North Yorkshire is partially to blame, and that is recognised by both the department of further education and the local education authority—there are moves afoot to redress the balance.
Four factors fall more within the Government's purview than that of the LEA, and I will target three of them. Under LMS, funding is given for average rather than actual salaries. That creates a serious problem in North Yorkshire, where many schools still have the same teachers in post as when LMS started—and they have higher than average salaries. Secondly, year after year we continue to lose out from area cost adjustment. I see no virtue in persisting with that scheme, which is supposed to reflect the higher cost of schools in London and the home counties, and a large percentage of expenditure goes on salaries—and they are fixed nationally. That only piles one agony on another.
Another problem is the growing population and increasing school rolls. Those pupils are growing older, yet no extra money is given. The extra cost must be met from the budget increase, which was only 1.8 per cent. last year for the whole county. I do not underestimate the difficulties of dealing with such problems at a time of financial stringency. They are not easily resolved. One could say much more about the funding of North Yorkshire county council, and we will be making representations to


Ministers at the Department of the Environment. That has a knock-on effect on education funding, given that the standard spending assessment is the starting point.
Schools will reopen before the House returns from the long summer recess, and I dare say that many hon. Members will have the opportunity to visit schools and to talk to head teachers. I hope that my remarks will help to inform Ministers when they come to consider how to resolve the problems that I mentioned. Some decisions will be taken soon after the House returns, so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey my concerns to Ministers in the relevant Departments so that greater fairness may be established for schools in shire counties throughout our land.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Four issues will not wait until October. The first is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority report. On 12 April, in a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, I interrupted the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) to ask this question:
Has the hon. Lady had any discussions with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority? Some people believe that research would be affected. Is the hon. Lady absolutely sure that it would not?
She replied:
Absolutely sure. I have had discussions with the authority. It knows what my intention is, and why.
I have a different version of events from members of that authority, but I will let that pass for reasons of time. The hon. Lady continued:
I want to send a message out to scientists that there is no point in spending any more time on research in that area, or in messing about with aborted mouse eggs, rat eggs or anything similar. The end product from using aborted human eggs for fertilisation purposes will simply not be allowed to be used. There are occasions when the House must assert its authority and make it clear that scientists sometimes go too far."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 158]
I was shocked by that, but nothing like as shocked as when I heard the Secretary of State for Health assent to all that drivel.
After consulting the British Medical Association, I ask whether, in the light of the HFEA's recent conclusion that the use of foetal ovarian tissue in research is acceptable, the Government will give the reassurance that the hon. Lady's amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill regarding the use of foetal ovarian tissue in fertility treatment will not in any way restrict valuable research in the causes and avoidance of infertility, birth defects, miscarriage and related areas. I am familiar with the distinguished research conducted at Edinburgh, and that matter is urgent.
Secondly, I have repeatedly raised the issue of the Lockerbie disaster and Pan Am 103. A letter to me from the Lord Advocate dated 8 July states:
The investigation remains open and we will, of course, look into anything relevant to the case; we cannot comment on particular investigative steps which may be taken.
I have thought for a long time that the Crown Office does not have the evidence that it claims. Nevertheless, I take at face value its desire to have a trial.
On 26 March, the Arab League backed a Libyan proposal to send to trial in the International Court of Justice, with Scottish judges and under Scottish law, the two Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie boming. The Arab League's resolution urged the UN Security Council to take into consideration

this serious and new proposal in the search for a peaceful solution to prevent any escalation that could increase the tension in the region".
There are 5,000 British nationals in that area, which is also valuable to British industry. For reasons of right and wrong and to try to bring an end to that deeply unsatisfactory situation, I plead with the Government once again to think of holding a trial under Scottish rules in the Hague.
The third issue is Iraq. I quote from Riad El Taher of Friendship Across Frontiers, with whom I went to Baghdad and to the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates last year. He has learned from independent travellers that the health situation there is diabolical due primarily to extra shortages of medicine and the desperate situation concerning water pumps and filters. The Leader of the House will know that I saw the Prime Minister about that matter. In the sweltering heat of this summer, I told him that there is a humanitarian aspect that ought to be resolved.
Finally, there are urgent questions for the Government in respect of cross-media ownership. Can The Times at 20p seriously be expected to make money without at first killing off at least one other broadsheet newspaper? If the answer is no, is not Mr. Murdoch's policy of The Times at 20p a clear case of predatory pricing? If so, why is it allowed? My question No. 9 to the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon was not fully answered.
Are the Government aware of the alleged view of Rupert Murdoch, expressed to David English, that Britain is over-papered by national newspapers, and that Mr. Murdoch foresees a situation in which we have only The Times, the Daily Mail and The Sun as national newspapers?
Are Ministers bothered about the extent of foreign ownership of the British press—The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and, perhaps soon, the Daily Mirror and other papers?
Mr. Murdoch is, in effect, giving The Times away. Of 20p, 17½p goes to the wholesalers and retailers who distribute and sell the paper. The 2½p that comes back to News International does not even begin to cover the cost of printing the paper—about 15p a copy. That is a £30 million a year subsidy.
Is Mr. Murdoch determined to use his virtually unlimited resources to rearrange the market to suit his own convenience? He is a cynic about human nature, believing that price will always overwhelm values, particularly the civilised values that he despises.
Parliament can do something about this matter. If we have the collective will, we can do something about cross-media ownership and follow the American example, where many states ask owners to choose between making money from television stations and their ownership of the press. That is a clear choice that can be made, and was indeed made in the case of Roy Thomson and the Scottish newspapers that he owned. He was made to give up STV.
The issue is the quality of democracy. I believe that Mr. Murdoch must be made to choose between his newspapers, the television station and BSkyB. Indeed, there is a strong argument, such is the ownership from abroad, for limiting ownership of the British press to Europeans. That is a truncated view, to which we will return tonight on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I wish to raise two brief points. The first is a local matter and the second is


international. There was a time when I felt that the whole of the United Kingdom wished to visit my constituency of Basildon—I really mean journalists and politicians. Judging from the results of the local government boundary review, it seems that, at the moment, Basildon is somewhat unloved. My district council very much supports unitary status. We wanted either to be a unitary authority on our own or part of a large unitary authority.
The result of the Local Government Commission review is that my constituents are given three options: option one is Basildon with Thurrock, while option two is Basildon with Thurrock, as is option three. That does not seem a great choice for my constituents. The chief executive of Thurrock council has said:
Thurrock's population is distinct from that of the rest of Essex. They shop locally and socialise locally. The strongest social, cultural and economic ties are with London.
I have nothing other than good will—as have my constituents—to direct to the residents of Thurrock, but as I have already described, Thurrock wants very much to be a London borough. As ever, the Labour party's position on the matter is quite extraordinary. The socialist leader of the Labour group on Basildon council, who was my Labour opponent in the general election, gave public evidence about the redistribution of the constituencies. On that occasion, the Boundary Commission wished to destroy my constituency and put part of it with Thurrock, and my Labour opponent said that we had nothing in common with residents of Thurrock and argued that Basildon should be kept in its entirety. When it came to the local government review, however, he argued that we had a great deal in common with the local residents of Thurrock.
I feel that my constituents have been hard done by in the commission's review. I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, when he considers those matters with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will look at Basildon's case for a unitary authority on its own.
My final point concerns Kuwait. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for all that she has done in trying to bring to the attention of the House the Kuwati prisoners of war. All hon. Members—bar, I think, about 56—supported the war to liberate Kuwait. At the end of the war, I felt that there was an unfinished matter—the fact that Saddam Hussein was still ruling Iraq in a most evil manner. The 625 prisoners of war seem to have been completely forgotten. The Iraqis also detained foreigners from nine nations that were sympathetic to the Kuwaiti cause.
It is very hard for us to understand the scale and anguish that the Kuwaiti people feel about their missing prisoners of war. Late at night, young people of 14 were rounded up out of their beds and taken away. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will resist the call to lift sanctions on Saddam Hussein. We should insist also that United Nations inspectors of biological and chemical weapons establishments should be permitted, with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to visit the prisoners of war in their gaols. It is an absolute disgrace that, for whatever reason, we seem to have forgotten them. I hope that the British Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep up the pressure to achieve the freedom of those people.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I think that the whole House will have much sympathy with what the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has said. As always with these brief debates, in the three hours available to us, we seem to be able to cram a quart into a parliamentary pint pot.
At the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) congratulated the Leader of the House on surviving what he described as the slaughter—a reference to today's Cabinet reshuffle. I am sure that the whole House is pleased to see that the Leader of the House is still with us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] He has a place in the affections of Opposition Members. I do not know whether the reshuffle could be described as a slaughter. It certainly was not a slaughter of the innocents.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, as he did in a previous Adjournment debate, made a determined case for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. He has the support of many Opposition Members for what he had to say. Similarly, his reference to what is now the pretty vexed issue of ministerial responsibility for veterans affairs commands much support from Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) spoke of the affairs of Surrey county cricket club and its perfectly reasonable desire to own the freehold of its premises. I suggest that she sponsor a Bill to vest the freehold. The local authority could then make a gift of it to the Surrey county cricket club. After all, if urban development corporations, set up by the Government, are allowed to vest the land of local authorities then hand it over to private sector business interests, surely in such a good cause it is open to us to consider proceeding in the same way.
My hon. Friend also had something to say about the relationship between publicans and their brewers. As I know a bit more about that, I feel that I am on safer territory there than I am when talking about cricket. There is widespread support for what she said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the plight of Cyprus, which has been divided now for 20 years, and the attitude of the British Government. It is a feature of these Adjournment debates that my hon. Friend raises an important foreign affairs topic. He has campaigned vigorously on behalf of Cyprus, and, indeed, has a strong constituency interest in the matter. I congratulate him on his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew our attention to the important issue of breast cancer, and the need for a national action plan. As she pointed out, one woman in 12 may be affected by the disease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—seeking, I suspect, to show support for the Prime Minister's views, which is unusual for him—made some comments which I hope that the Leader of the House will find helpful and convey to the Prime Minister, who will no doubt receive them ecstatically. If the views of the rejected President of the European Commission are shared by the accepted President, surely Members of the European Parliament should consider carefully whether our Prime Minister would approve of the appointment of such a person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also referred to inequalities in the treatment of those who work for a wage and the position of top managers who are able to set their own wages and conditions—including, all too often nowadays, very generous share option schemes. This is not the first occasion on which the House has considered an issue that is clearly very divisive, not just in the House but in society as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) spoke of personal pensions and in particular the inadequacy of provision, especially for those who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, without, I suspect, fully appreciating the consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) drew our attention to four separate topics—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the importance of protecting those engaged in legitimate research; the Lockerbie tragedy, and his continued campaign for a trial to be held according to Scottish rules; Iraq; and the newspaper price war. I note that that last subject will be debated again later tonight.
Let me mention two other matters. First, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Leader of the House and I are engaged in discussions aimed at securing a package arising from the Jopling report. I am not yet in a position to state formally the views of the parliamentary Labour party, but I can say that discussions are proceeding well and have been very thorough. I hope that we can soon put proposals to the House that may well apply in the next Session, and I know that my view is shared by the Leader of the House.
I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman personally for the courteous and constructive manner in which the negotiations have been conducted. There has been a genuine willingness to make progress, on the basis that the balance of advantage between Government and Opposition should not be disturbed: the arrangements that we make should be for the convenience of the House, and no attempt should be made to score party points.
Finally, let me make a plea for Swan Hunter. It has become almost traditional—in what has been a sad and difficult year for Tyneside, for my constituents and for those in the neighbouring constituencies of Wallsend and Jarrow who work in the shipbuilding yard—for me to make such a plea, and to ask the Government to give Swan Hunter an order so that it can survive. As the House will know, yesterday the vital procurement order relating to the Sir Bedivere, which could have secured a private sector solution to Swan Hunter's problems, was placed with Rosyth. That decision almost certainly means the closure of Swan Hunter and the end of shipbuilding on the Tyne.
Let me give the House an idea of the scale of the problem on Tyneside. Before the receivers came in, Swan Hunter's wages bill was just over £1 million a week. That went into a pretty concentrated economy in the communities represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and myself. We stand to lose all that.
Although most of the domestic industry had ganged up against us—for reasons that may have seemed commercially sound to those involved—we had managed to secure a foreign shipyard, Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie, which was interested in taking our yard over, to compete for work not just in the British procurement programme but in the middle east. It believed that the work could be done on Tyneside. If the bid had been allowed to

proceed, we could have added something to the British economy, foreign investment and overseas work; we would not be taking work from others. That strikes me as particularly unfair.
Our community has been hit by heavy engineering redundancies at NEI Parsons, by pit closures in County Durham and Northumberland and by the complete closure of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry in neighbouring Sunderland. If the blow delivered yesterday is fatal, as it almost certainly will be, I do not think that we shall be able to sustain it. I am sure that the Lord President is not unsympathetic; he realises how desperate is the plight of Tyneside people. Will he arrange for a representative of the Department of Trade and Industry, or perhaps the Prime Minister himself, to announce an aid package for Tyneside—an economic development package —to ameliorate the dreadful circumstances in which we now find ourselves? I hope that that can be done before the House rises for the recess.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for his kind remarks about me personally; I also thank hon. Members for their warm response to those remarks. I am certainly pleased to be continuing in my present role, not least because of the exposure that it brings me, in debates such as this, to what might be described as the rich tapestry of House of Commons life—ranging from the impact of fragments on Jupiter to a number of other events rather closer to home.
I congratulate the House on the way in which it has conducted its business over the past three hours. I cannot recollect as many as 16 or 17 speeches being made in this debate before. That number will make it even more difficult for me to reply to all who have spoken as fully as I should like. Let me add, however, that in cases of which I can only take note I shall ensure later that points deserving further reply from my ministerial colleagues will be drawn to their attention.
I well understand why the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East mentioned Tyneside and Swan Hunter. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) would echo many of his views, and I will ensure that the points that he raised are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others who may be concerned with such matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, five or six years ago I was for a year the Minister with responsibility for shipbuilding, and I had much to do with shipbuilding on Tyneside. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising the issue.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned our discussions on the Jopling report. As I have repeatedly emphasised, the eventual package must pay due regard to the interests of all involved. The need for such a balance makes the task complex, and it must necessarily proceed on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A good deal of detailed work remains to be done, and—as the hon. Gentleman said—neither of us can become drawn further into the matter today; but I too can say without reservation that our discussions have been friendly, positive and constructive.
We believe that we have made good progress in identifying a package that offers the prospect of achieving wider agreement on changes that could be made in the next Session, probably on a trial or experimental basis. I hope to work further towards that end during the recess and perhaps I might reciprocate the kindness of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East by saying that I hope that he will be able to continue to work with me in the positive and constructive way that we have achieved so far.
I hasten to make some comments as best I can on some of the speeches that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) drew attention to the National Audit Office report on property owned by the Department of Transport. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department are seeking to ensure that the properties are let quickly, which would appear to be the best preventive measure. I am sure that they want to look carefully at the points that he made.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) predictably, but I would not say unreasonably, went over ground that has become fairly well trodden. I hope that he will understand if in the brief time available I do not add to what has been said about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of provision for ex-service people. During that debate, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said:
The debate is intended for hon. Members to bounce ideas off one another".—[Official Report, 1 July 1994; Vol. 245, c. 1078.]
That did not give quite the impression that the right hon. Gentleman sought to convey in his remarks. The Government's attitude was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who was previously the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The resolution was approved by the House and is a decision of this place. That must be an important matter.

Mr. Newton: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but my point about the spirit in which the hon. Member for Thurrock approached the debate and the point that he made does something to weaken the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and a range of other hon. Members on both sides of the House made a number of points about the local government review, local government expenditure and so on. I have been given a briefing note which says that I should say that the Government are in a listening mode. I can tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that both I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are listening carefully to what they say.
I have a line that is barely more helpful for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) who spoke about the freehold of the Oval. It says that it is not for the Government to intervene in a matter between Surrey county cricket club and the Duchy of Cornwall. I am cautious about going beyond that. I have been the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but that is somewhat different. I am sure that those at whom her remarks were directed will want to consider carefully what she has said and what is in the early-day motion. I know that my right

hon. Friend the Prime Minister is interested in Surrey county cricket club, and some of the hon. Lady's remarks may have aroused his interest.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall and others raised the issue of pubs. I am advised that there are not seen to be grounds for the Government to take action against Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd., except possibly for abuse of the English or French language, because there is no evidence that the company has breached the beer orders or undertakings. Again, I am sure that the hon. Lady's remarks will be carefully studied, not least by those Ministers who will be relieved that presumably the purpose of her speech was to ensure that somebody did not need to be here at about 5 am to listen to the debate in which she had intended to raise that matter.
I congratulate the House generally on the ingenuity that has been shown. I calculate that about half the speeches that I have listened to in the past three hours have been a way of hon. Members avoiding the need to be here at extremely inconvenient hours during the night. I am sure that that purpose will be warmly endorsed by my right hon. and hon. Friends who might have had to be here.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that those who brief me assiduously have failed to give me any up-to-date information on the situation on Jupiter. To be honest, they have not come up with anything useful on Classic FM either. One of my hon. Friend's questions was directed at me and concerned the content of the next legislative programme, which is a matter in which I have an interest. As my hon. Friend will know, part of the way in which that interest is expressed is in a traditional phrase saying that one cannot anticipate the next Queen's Speech. However, I note what my hon. Friend said.
I can tell the other hon. Members to whose contributions I shall not be able to respond that I shall genuinely look at what they have said, not least at what was said by those who raised health service issues, some of them going back to my time at the Department of Health. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) may recall—if she does not, I intend to remind her—that I was the Minister who launched the breast cancer screening programme some eight years ago. It made us the first country in the European Community to launch such a programme. We are always concerned to find ways of building on that initiative and improving the way in which we deal with that problem.
I apologise to those hon. Members on whose speeches I have not been able to comment, not least the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who raised some powerful points. I invite the House—I hope to obtain its assent—to pass the motion on the Order Paper.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 74.

Division No. 301]
[6.56 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bates, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs. Angela






Burt, Alistair
Lord, Michael


Butcher, John
Luff, Peter


Butterfill, John
MacKay, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cash, William
Malone, Gerald


Clappison, James
Mans, Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Conway, Derek
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mills, Iain


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cormack, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Moss, Malcolm


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Nelson, Anthony


Devlin, Tim
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dicks, Terry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Dover, Den
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Norris, Steve


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Dunn, Bob
Patnick, Irvine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Porter, David (Waveney)


Elletson, Harold
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Fabricant, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Forman, Nigel
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sackville, Tom


Forth, Eric
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


French, Douglas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Fry, Sir Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Soames, Nicholas


Garnier, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Gillan, Cheryl
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spink, Dr Robert


Gorst, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stephen, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Stern, Michael


Hague, William
Streeter, Gary


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Hannam, Sir John
Sykes, John


Harris, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hawksley, Warren
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hendry, Charles
Thomason, Roy


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Thurnham, Peter


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunter, Andrew
Walden, George


Jack. Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wallace, James


Jenkin, Bernard
Ward, John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Waterson, Nigel


Kilfedder, Sir James
Watts, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Whittingdale, John


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Widdecombe, Ann


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Legg, Barry



Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Tellers for the AYES:


Lidington, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Lightbown, David





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bennett, Andrew F.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland





Byers, Stephen
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Livingstone, Ken


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Chisholm, Malcolm
Mackinlay, Andrew


Clapham, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Alice


Corston, Ms Jean
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cox, Tom
Morgan, Rhodri


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Morley, Elliot


Dafis, Cynog
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
O'Hara, Edward


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Pope, Greg


Denham, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Rendel, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Salmond, Alex


Eastham, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Foulkes, George
Simpson, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Gerrard, Neil
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gordon, Mildred
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hanson, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hardy, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Hoey, Kate
Wilson, Brian


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Winnick, David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Audrey


Illsley, Eric
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)



Jamieson, David
Tellers for the Noes: 


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising to-morrow, do adjourn Monday 17th October.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention something important that has happened today following the laying before the House some hours ago of the accounts of the Welsh Development Agency. They stated, without reference to the House, that all loans and grants from the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales to small and medium-sized firms have been suspended forthwith. I draw it to your attention, Madam Speaker, because on 7 July the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement on the legality of grants and loans from the DBRW and the WDA but did not mention the fact that they had been suspended. Without reference to the House, it has been decided that, for at least 10 months, small and medium-sized firms in Wales are to receive no grants or loans.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I can rule only on the procedure of the House, and on our Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) appears to have an argument with the Government, but it is not a matter for the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that this is a point of order, although it arises from the same matter, because it relates to the fact that we are about to adjourn for the summer recess. The accounts were put in the Journal Office only today, and will not be available to hon. Members until tomorrow, by which time it will be too late to do anything about a matter of considerable importance, not only to rural


Wales—because of the development of rural initiative, venture and enterprise grants—but to those concerned with the industrial valleys grants. Companies will be left in limbo for three months or longer, so that is a matter of considerable concern. Through you, Madam Speaker, may I invite a Minister to come to the House tomorrow morning to address the issue?

Madam Speaker: If any Minister wishes to make a statement on the matter, and to give information to the House, the House will be here tomorrow morning and I shall be in the Chair to hear any such statement.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5744/94, relating to local government elections; welcomes the principle expressed in that document that the laws of Member States should apply as far as possible; and endorses the main policy objectives of the Government as expressed in paragraph 22 of the Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 22nd April 1994, in particular the Government's view expressed in paragraph 11 of the Memorandum that proposals for the attestation of non-national candidates at local government elections by their home Member State are unworkable in the United Kingdom, and the view expressed in paragraph 15 of the Memorandum that the provisions of the Directive should be reviewable.

Orders of the Day — TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORKS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7073/94, relating to the development of trans-European transport networks; and endorses the Government's proposed approach to negotiations on the proposal in the Council.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Privileges

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer, and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges.
The original motion on the Order Paper has been amended because a new position has arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), whom we had intended to nominate as a member of the Committee, is expected—I have to put it in those terms at the moment —to take up another appointment that would be incompatible with his membership of the Committee. I have therefore suggested to the House an amended motion containing the name of Dame Jill Knight, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am prepared and content to accept a motion moved in that form, with the name of Dame Jill Knight substituted for that of Mr. John Ward. I also inform the House at this stage that I have selected a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to leave out the name of Sir Marcus Fox.

Mr. Newton: I intend to speak only briefly to the motion, as I did on the original motion to establish the Committee—and for the same reasons. The nominations reflect established and accepted precedents in providing for the inclusion of myself as Leader of the House, the Attorney-General and the shadow Attorney-General, the chairman of the 1922 committee and the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, and 12 other senior Members from both sides of the House. Eight members of the Committee—slightly fewer than half—are Privy Councillors. I believe that that will be a Committee whose experience and judgment will command the respect of the House, and in which it can have confidence concerning the discharge of the responsibility that the House has laid on it.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall be brief. My manuscript amendment calls upon the House to delete the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). I have attempted to give the hon. Gentleman notice of the amendment. I left a note for him on the Board some hours ago, and telephoned his office, but he was not there. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was probably at a board meeting."' However, as his name appears on the Order Paper the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to be surprised that the business is being dealt with this evening.
I have nothing personal against the hon. Member for Shipley. I do not question his integrity in any way. But with the best will in the world, I do not accept that someone so weighed down with directorships and consultancies can creditably serve on a Committee of that nature. I took the opportunity to look in the Register of Members' Interests and saw that the hon. Gentleman has quite a long list of remunerated directorships.
For example, there is Westminster Communications, whose clients include British Gas, the Builders Merchants Federation and Standard Life. There are also the Care Services Group, which is a contract cleaning services

company; McCarthy and Stone Ltd., which deals in sheltered housing; the Bristol Port Company; the Illingworth Morris group, which is a wool textile group; Hartley Investment Trust, a group investment company; the Yorkshire Food Group, a food processing company; and Pubmaster Ltd., which owns public houses.
The hon. Gentleman has other remunerated employment, too. He is a consultant to 3M (UK) Ltd.., a manufacturer of industrial, consumer, commercial and health care products; to Shepherd (Construction) Ltd., which is an industrial and commercial builder; and to Gratte Brothers Ltd., electrical engineers. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is an extremely busy man, quite apart from anything else. The question even arises whether he will have time to fit in service on the Committee between his other engagements.
However, that is not the point of my amendment. I believe that the Committee must not confine itself to the alleged foolishness of the two hon. Members whose actions caused it to be set up, but should address the wider issue—the fact that Members of Parliament are sent here to serve their constituents, not to enrich themselves. If the Committee failed to deal with that question, it would undermine not only its own credibility, not only Parliament's credibility, but the credibility of the democratic process.
Many of our constituents feel strongly about those issues, which reflect on all of us. So many people want to believe the worst of Parliament, and we all have an interest in ensuring that they believe the best. I am most anxious that people should not be able to allege that the Committee has been stitched up because it is too deeply in hock to vested interests to tackle properly the questions that it should address.
The hon. Member for Shipley is not by any stretch of the imagination the only Member who is weighed down with directorships and consultancies. It is cynical of the Government to stuff the Committee with Members who so obviously have an interest in ensuring that nothing will change. They have badly misread public opinion, and misread the mood in the House of Commons, too.
It is no part of my argument to say that there are no Tory Members fit to serve on the Committee. There are plenty of Tory Members of proven integrity who have no directorships or consultancies, and who share the Opposition's concern about the credibility of the democratic process. I should like to see some of those people on the Committee, and I am puzzled as to why the Government have chosen not to add any of them. They should take the names on the Order Paper away and come back with others.
My amendment asks the Government to delete only one name and to find just one Tory Member who is completely free of vested interests and can be relied upon to uphold the integrity of the House and to tackle the wider issues that the Committee should address.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of removing one hon. Member from the Committee. He will be aware that I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, which requested that three hon. Members be removed and be replaced by three women. The Government have now tried to correct that serious error and they have put a woman on the Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is absolutely


disgraceful that the Government simply see men in grey suits with lots of consultancies, and the rest of the human race is totally ignored.

Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Chairman Mao said, women hold up half the sky. They should be properly represented on the Committee.
I repeat that I have nothing personal against the hon. Member for Shipley. I just want the Committee to command credibility not only with the House, but with the public. I want it to hold a proper inquiry which addresses an issue that has been a running sore for many of our constituents for many years. The fact that the situation has been allowed to continue for so many years does us no credit at all. I ask that the name of the hon. Member for Shipley be deleted from the list of Committee members.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: It may be appropriate for me to begin by declaring my own outside interests. I am on the advisory board of the Union Bank of Switzerland, I work for Bywater International and I work for British Gas and British Global Gas. There is one other confession that I should make to the House which is appropriate to this debate: on one occasion, I received £1,000 in the Palace of Westminster in circumstances that some of my constituents—I hope not many—might regard as reprehensible. I placed a wager with an Opposition Member on the result of the 1992 general election. He was unwise enough to bet on a Labour victory and I was able to pocket £1,000. I hope to show the House that this incident is relevant to the motion.

Mr. David Harris: Opposition Members want complete openness; that is the whole point of the manuscript amendment. Surely, therefore, it is incumbent on my right hon. Friend to name the Opposition Member who handed over £1,000 to him.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall come to that point in a moment. I mention the incident because, although it is true that some of our constituents would condemn gambling in any shape or form, the fact is that most of our fellow citizens indulge in an occasional flutter. The House—this is the point that I wish to make in reference to the members of the Committee—would be vastly diminished if those of us who make up its membership did not reflect not only the hopes and ambitions of our constituents, but their whims and foibles. There is a footnote to the wager.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ms Jean Corston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: When I have concluded this point, I shall give way to hon. Members who wish to intervene.
There is a footnote to the wager—and this answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The Opposition Member concerned, who paid up promptly and honourably, asked me not to go public on the matter and that is why I do not propose to reveal his name. In fact I told a number of my close colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the very eve of the election and I have told a number of friends in the

House about the incident since, always making it clear that it was not for public consumption. I am delighted to tell the House that it has never appeared in public print. I do not—

Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall finish the point and then I shall certainly give way. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears about that.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Was it the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)?

Mr. Garel-Jones: It was not.
I do not know why the Opposition Member concerned wants to keep the matter to himself. Perhaps it is partly for domestic reasons. If I had come home having lost a general election and £1,000, Mrs. Garel-Jones would have been exceedingly displeased with me. The hon. Member concerned may think that the puritan element of the Labour party—perhaps I should now call it the Christian socialist element—would find it distasteful that a member of the Labour party should be able to wager a considerable amount in that way. Whatever his reasons, I have thought it right to respect them.
I hope that the House and our constituents will think that neither of us comes out of this incident with any particular discredit. I also hope that punters across the country will wish that they had concluded, as I did and still do, that John Major is a good bet.
I make one final point on the matter. The House should know that the £1,000 was invested in a very pretty frock for Mrs. Garel-Jones and I am sure that Opposition and Conservative Members would approve of that.

Mr. Salmond: There is no disgrace in losing money backing one's own party, but there is some disgrace in winning money by betting against one's party. The right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said that he wanted the Committee to be composed of those who reflected the range of foibles of hon. Members. By the same logic, would the right hon. Gentleman advocate that a criminal trial should take place in front of a jury of convicts?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I can answer both questions. I would advise the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), if he is placing bets, to bet on John Major and not on his own party. Curiously enough, the best bet at the general election, which I did not make, was 50 to one on the Tories getting more seats in Scotland, which as the hon. Gentleman will recall, they successfully did.
I remind the hon. Gentleman, with respect, that we are not talking here about a criminal trial. We are talking—I now come to the more serious part of my speech—about a very serious matter—the reputation and conduct of hon. Members and the reputation of the House itself. We are not talking about a criminal trial.

Ms Corston: I suspect that my hon. Friends and Conservative Members may consider that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are something of a smokescreen. He referred to a wager between himself and another hon. Member as a little flutter. Is he suggesting that having 18 consultancies or directorships, or accepting money for tabling questions is the same as a little flutter which is immediately honoured?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I am coming to the main thrust of my speech. I was simply making the point—it is a fair point—that the House is not just a body of high-minded legislators, although I hope that it is that, too, but a group of men and women who, I hope and believe, broadly reflect not only the aspirations and hopes of the British people, but their whims and foibles. I hope that the House thinks that the illustration I have given is fair and that it does not reflect to the discredit of the Opposition Member concerned or myself.
In your statement to the House on 12 July, Madam Speaker, you indicated your thoughts to the House. The motion moved the following day by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), which followed from that, has led to the nominations, with one amendment, in the motion today. The nominations have been made in the usual way by the two main parties, with one representative from the minority parties.
The task we are asking our colleagues to undertake is a difficult one. They have to examine not only the specific incident complained of, but what you, Madam Speaker, referred to as the conduct of the newspaper concerned, the wider aspect of our relationship with the press and the even wider topic of the lobbying of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. CampbellSavours)—I have considerable respect, even affection, for the hon. Gentleman—has told the House that he regards the nominations as a stitch-up, a phrase repeated just now by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is the view of the hon. Member for Workington that no hon. Member who has any outside interests at all—not even, to be fair to him, because he has made it clear, Labour Members sponsored by trade unions or those with other outside interests—should be allowed to serve on the Committee. I think that that broadly is his view.
In fact, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South are attempting to bring about a sort of reverse stitch-up of their own and, furthermore—I would contend—one that would irreparably damage the House and turn it into a refuge for unemployable people, third-rate people, one or two millionaires and a few perfectly admirable, if rather evangelical, campaigners.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What a definition of the Tory party.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry that hon. Members are treating this debate with such levity. There are evangelical campaigners on both sides of the House who make a significant contribution to the House, as does the hon. Member for Workington. However, I do not believe that the interests of the House or the country would be served if the House was made up of evangelical campaigners with a sprinkling of millionaires and a few unemployable people.
I very much hope that the House will support the motion on the Order Paper and brush aside the amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, which is an attempt to stack the Committee in a way which accords with his view, and that of the hon. Member for Workington and perhaps some other Labour Members present, of the world.
As to the Committee as nominated, I have every confidence in both the Labour and Tory Members named that, between them, they represent a proper cross-section of today's House of Commons. As I said, the task that we are

asking our colleagues to undertake, if the motion is carried, is a difficult one. The specific incident complained of is not one which reflects credit either on the hon. Members concerned or on the press and our relationship with them.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that our pay and allowances are inadequate to encourage people of quality to come here. If so, does he recall that we decide our own pay and allowances, and the two hon. Members who are the subject of this debate voted against the increase in our allowances two years ago, as did 50 other Tory Members who have substantial interests? If we decide the levels of our pay and allowances, we should set them at an adequate level, and we would not need to prostitute our work and time here to bodies outside.

Madam Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will not be led down that road because as he realises, and as does the House, all that we are discussing tonight is the motion on the Order Paper, which is a group of names.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I most certainly did not come into the House because I was attracted by the pay or, indeed, the conditions.
What I hope the nominated Members will not do is allow the hostile feelings that all of us sometimes feel towards the press to run away with them, and take measures against access to the press and so on which the House may, with hindsight, regret. I also hope that the Committee will not overreact to the foolish rather than wicked conduct of our colleagues. It will be for them, by their future conduct in the House, to regain and re-establish their reputations, and I am sure that that is what they will wish to do.
Finally, I hope that the Committee will not be over-prescriptive. We need new guidelines, but they should seek to strike a balance—I am sure that the names before us today will be the proper people to do this—between reinforcing the generally honest and open way in which hon. Members conduct themselves, and at the same time ensuring that the House continues to reflect the nation at large and to attract men and women who are capable of doing that. I hope that the House approves the motion, and I wish the Committee well in its deliberations.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). It is the sort of speech that one would have expected him to give in the circumstances.
There was an interesting editorial in The Sun this morning. It is not a newspaper that I normally read, but I thought that I might commence my modest contribution this evening by quoting it because in many ways it sums up the dilemma in this debate. I quote:
Fair's fair. Nine Tories are on the Committee investigating the 'questions for cash' affair.
Between them they hold 18 lucrative directorships and nine consultancies.
They will say that makes them eminently qualified to judge the issue.
We do not for one moment doubt their integrity.
But they must realise that many people fear a whitewash. If they are happy to investigate fellow MPs, we have a suggestion for them …
Why not let the
Murdoch-owned


Sun decide the guilt of the
Murdoch-owned
Sunday Times.
In many ways, that sums up what the argument is all about.
What I intend to do tonight is to put the case for those Tory Back Benchers who were not considered for the Committee, a number of whom are present in the Chamber. Over the past week, the House of Commons has made an ass of itself: all over the country, people are wondering why the Government allowed themselves to be drawn into this appalling mess and why they allowed Parliament to be discredited. People want to know—as, indeed, do I and many of my hon. Friends—why, out of something like 320 Tory Members, it was impossible to find nine good men or women free of commercial influences and capable and competent enough to sit on the Committee of Privileges.
I will read out to the House the names of all those hon. Members who, clearly, were not considered. They have no commercial interests and would have made fine Members of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), for Beverley (Mr. Cran), for Cheadle (Mr. Day), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), for Waveney (Mr. Porter), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) are all free of commercial interests; all are able, I presume; and all are good Tories. Why were they not considered?
Among that list are four former Ministers, and as I look around I see that three of them are in the Chamber this evening. Why could not those hon. Members be put on the Committee? Why did the Government load the Committee with Members who have commercial interests?

Mr. Garel-Jones: How does the hon. Gentleman know that those hon. Members were not considered?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If they were considered, why were they rejected? Is there something that we are not to be told—that they are not competent? I see the hon. Member for Dartford, who is a former Education Minister; I understand that he had six years in the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Eltham had five years in the Conservative Government.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Six.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman was a Minister of State.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I could seek the protection of the Chair, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Many Conservatives are astonished that the hon. Member has not been nominated by his party. Was he considered and was his name rejected? Did he refuse to serve?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) would have been a keen supporter of my nomination. I did not want to be a member of the Committee: I wanted to give evidence—I want to influence events.
I also believe that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) should give evidence to the Committee; he has a lot to say and a formidable case to make as he clearly believes in all the consultancies. He needs the money, so why was he not given the opportunity to give evidence to the Privileges Committee when he could put the case for perks? As it is, he will be wrapped up, behind closed doors, in conditions of private deliberation by members of the Committee. Unless the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is carried, the hon. Member for Shipley will be unable to speak freely on this matter, so that the public can hear what he has to say.
We heard what the hon. Member for Shipley had to say some years ago, in 1989, when the Select Committee on Members' Interests held an inquiry into lobbying. The hon. Members for Shipley and for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) gave evidence. What the hon. Member for Shipley said was extremely interesting. It might be useful to the House to be reminded of that evidence, because it reveals why many of us have a problem with the hon. Gentleman's membership of the Privileges Committee. We believe that he has a conflict of interest with the terms and remit of that Committee.
In 1989, the hon. Member for Shipley was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the activities of his consulting company. The hon. and learned Member asked:
Can I ask you a more specific question: you tell us that you have been to see a Minister once in recent times"—
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Eltham remembers that meeting, as he was the Minister concerned—
did you go in your capacity as a Member of Parliament leading a delegation, or in your professional capacity as a director of the company?
The hon. Member for Shipley replied:
I took the deputation as a director of Westminster Communications and they were a client. That was made quite clear to the Minister"—
the hon. Member for Eltham
I took very little part, apart from introducing the people, who were far more knowledgable about the industry than I was. I certainly took no part in it in the role as a Member of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Eltham seems to have forgotten that meeting, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley will recall it.

Mr. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not worry: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy—

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member is making a number of references to me, among others, which are not all accurate. It would be a kindness if he could make the points that he wants to make without necessarily dragging in everyone else. To describe the meeting is fine, but to say what I did or did not know is not right. The hon. Gentleman would be doing the House a service if he got on with what he is trying to say.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, but if the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) wishes to catch my eye to rebut anything now being said, I will certainly be able to call him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I presume from that point of order that the hon. Member for Eltham does recall that meeting and what he said at it.
At the 1989 inquiry, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East went on to ask the hon. Member for Shipley:
Do you think it was easier for you to obtain that meeting because you were a Member of Parliament who happened to be a consultant as well?
The hon. Member for Shipley replied:
Well, it would not be any hindrance".
That reply is what worries some of us. We are genuinely concerned that someone who feels that that is the way to conduct himself as a Member of the House of Commons —by running a public relations company, having access to Ministers and arranging meetings for clients—should serve on the Privileges Committee and work its procedures in defence of a principle that we find quite unacceptable. We reject that approach.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) referred to eunuchs in the House of Commons. Many of my hon. Friends may not be pleased by what I am about to say, but I do not believe that hon. Members should not be directors of companies or consultants to companies if they so wish. It is their choice. If they want to do that, it is their choice and it is for their electors to decide whether they should be free to do so.
What I object to is the fact that, under the current rules, those hon. Members can use parliamentary proceedings to arrange the very meetings to which I have just referred, to table motions, to ask questions, to lobby civil servants and to lobby their colleagues. I object to them using all the privileges that the House offers to further the interests of their clients, customer companies and consultancies.

Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman has not referred yet to trade union sponsorship and membership of the Privileges Committee. Does he draw a distinction between trade union sponsorship and consultancies and directorships?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: For the umpteenth time in the past week, I will explain what that sponsorship means. I am one of those creatures who are sponsored, but in those nine years of sponsorship I have never received one penny from the trade union. I do not receive money now from it and I will never receive money from it. There are no conditions in which the trade union would ever dream of offering me any money. If the hon. Gentleman can imprint it on his grey matter, that sponsorship means that there is a relationship between Unison and my constituency party whereby the trade union transfers a sum of money to the

constituency party, which is used to serve people and their complaints about employment, social security, housing, the Inland Revenue or whatever.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am in no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's position, which he has made quite plain, but I am in some doubt about how he feels about those hon. Members who write articles for newspapers, appear on television and on radio and are well remunerated for it. Does he put them in the same category as those who are directors, as the former frequently peddle their form of prejudice and try to promote various causes? Does the hon. Gentleman put them in the same category?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. If the hon. Gentleman does, he shows a misunderstanding of the debate. It is interesting that last weekend I was denied an interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme because the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told the programme makers that he would not appear on television with me. He was obviously scared stiff of being asked critical questions about what was on the transcript of his conversation, which in my view he has misrepresented to the House. That, too, is a matter for the Committee to deal with.
It is important to consider the remit that you set for the Privileges Committee, Madam Speaker, and how it can conduct its inquiry. In your statement to the House, you said:
I should like to make it clear that the Committee will have power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege which are concerned. I hope that it will use that power for the assistance of the House in a difficult area."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 829.]
I believe that that was an excellent remit because it was wide and covers all the area of concern that many of my hon. Friends wish the inquiry to consider.
We know that the inquiry will cover the question of entrapment—there are varying views about whether that took place—and the two hon. Members concerned, but I believe that there is another issue of far more importance that than specific matter. I do not believe that the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) are particularly relevant to the debate. We have moved on from them. They have been punished by their constituents and perhaps even by their local associations. Of course, the Committee will want to take a position on that, but the central issue now is what we do in future about the rule which gives Members the right to sell themselves to the highest bidder in a way—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must bring the hon. Member back to the motion, which concerns the names being put forward to form the Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member will deal with the motion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I shall lead directly to that.
If the remit of the Committee is as I have described, its business is consultancy. I am arguing that many of the Members whose names are set out in the motion will be faced with a conflict of interest when it comes to an inquiry into consultancy. I remember the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests of 1990–91—it was the Committee's first report. In paragraph 24, to which I referred last week, we—that is: the Committee—stated,


when a member of a committee, particularly the Chairman, has a pecuniary interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, the Member should stand aside from the Committee proceedings relating to it.
That was endorsed by the House late one night without a vote. So the House has approved that Members must stand aside from the Committee if a conflict of interest exists.
We have a remit to examine consultancies and we have Members who are consultants on the Committee. I put it to the Leader of the House that there is a direct conflict of interest and that there will be many occasions during the course of the inquiry when, if the rule embodied in paragraph 24 is to be followed, many Members will have to withdraw. I want to know whether they will do so.
We are told that it is custom and tradition for the Committee to meet in private. The members of the Committee will not deliberate publicly. What assurances can I have, on the basis that no one on the Committee can disclose what is happening behind closed doors, that whenever the issue of consultancy arises—it is an issue that the inquiry must address as it is one of the three pillars of its work—Members who face a conflict of interest will withdraw? Who will carry out the policing? Who will consider the issue at every stage? Will the Clerk do so and advise the Chairman that the moment the conflict referred to in paragraph 24 arises, those Members who face it must withdraw?
The relevant resolution suggests that, when the Committee deals with its report, Members who face a conflict of interest should stand aside. Are we to presume that when the Committee deals with the subject of consultancy—this will be behind closed doors in a deliberative session—those Members who have consultancies and directorships will withdraw from the proceedings if those interests constitute a conflict of interest? If not, they would be in breach of a resolution of the House, and that would be wrong.
We will not let the issue go away. We will persist in raising it. We will not know what is going on behind closed doors. We might ask the Leader of the House every week —he will be a member of the Committee—whether the rule embodied in paragraph 24 is being enforced. The minutes will be published. In 1981, when I brought a complaint about Mr. Ian MacGregor, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, the minutes of the Committee were published.
We shall study the Divisions that take place during the Committee's proceedings. There may well be Divisions. The Committee will be unlike previous Privileges Committees in some respects because its membership will include those who are not Privy Councillors. It might be more controversial in the way in which it works. The internal dynamics of the Committee might not be as consensual as on previous occasions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) always tells us that the Committee has a tendency to drive itself into the sand.
There are aspects of the Committee's work that cause us problems. I want to know, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, whether Members will withdraw in the event of a conflict arising. That is critical. If the Leader of the House has found a curious way of justifying the membership of

the Committee, he must know that it is one that cannot be sustained publicly. He has not advanced any such argument at the Dispatch Box. He merely moved the motion. He did not deal with the issue of membership. Will he deal with it when he replies? If he cannot deal with it in a way which justifies the Committee's membership, does that mean that Members will have to withdraw? The only way to ensure that the Committee has credibility in the future is either to withdraw the motion or for Conservative Members to enter the Opposition Lobby this evening and vote against the motion. As it stands, it is nonsense.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall make some complaints in my relatively short contribution to the debate. First, I believe that there is an organisation which gets sponsored Members to meet, who exclude one Member at least who is fully qualified to join the meeting. These are the meetings of the sponsored Members of the Transport and General Workers union. A significant number of Members—they are all Opposition Members —get cash for votes. They have their election expenses paid so that they can get into the House. I do not know how anyone can say that that is not a personal benefit because getting into the House is one of the greatest honours for any citizen of the United Kingdom.
The group of TGWU Members excludes a member of that union who entered the House without cash for votes. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that you should refer to the Committee of Privileges the issue that any group which sponsors individuals to be elected to the House should give consideration to accepting people who have no disqualification.
I oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I shall explain why. If one in three Opposition Members is sponsored—I think that virtually all members of the Opposition Front Bench are sponsored—we are beginning to see organisations buying people of influence, in so far as being on the Opposition Front Bench is a position of influence. I hope that the Committee of Privileges, with the membership proposed in the amended motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, will take account of the broader issues, which include cash for votes.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman pay the political levy as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. Bottomley: Of course I do not. If I did, I would be qualified to vote for the Labour party leadership.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will now refer to the motion and deal with the names set out within it.

Mr. Bottomley: If you had asked me, Madam Speaker, whether I was qualified to vote as a member of the Co-op, I would have said yes. I am inclined to opt out of that as well. In fact, I did not vote.
I want to know whether an Opposition Member—not only those who have spoken so far—could have stood for Parliament without being a member of a trade union. Which Opposition Member now in the Chamber could have stood for election to this place, under Labour party rules, without being a member of a trade union?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's argument hardly refers to the motion. He is a good debater, and I hope that he will follow the rules of the House and return to the motion.

Mr. Bottomley: The relevant rules require that, if someone is eligible to be a member of a trade union, he or she has to be a member to stand as a Labour candidate. If Opposition Members do not know that, they have not read Labour party rules.
If the House takes the view of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman continues to interrupt, he will demonstrate that he feels that he is on dodgier ground now than when he was speaking. He spent 20 minutes saying, in effect, that if one Member was in a family who imported ormolu clocks from Italy and another was involved in a family wine business, if the one in the clock business gave up his interest in the business he would be qualified for membership of the Committee of Privileges, but the Member involved with the family wine business would be disqualified if he chose to continue to be so involved.
Let us say that the family who imported ormolu clocks sold the business and received £1 million for it, and had £100,000 coming in for doing nothing—that might be the Labour point of view—while the family with the wine business continued to trade. Would the continuation of the wine business disqualify the Member who was connected with it? I disagree with that.
The biggest disqualification of the Committee of Privileges is to have on it people who can be told what to do by the Whips. Those who cannot be told what to do by the Whips are the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, as he is elected by his fellows, and the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
As a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, has decided to substitute his judgment for that of Tory Back-Bench Members who elected my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) to be chairman of the 1922 Committee. Had my hon. Friend continued as chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would no doubt have objected to him. Had I become chairman of the 1922 Committee—I am not volunteering for the job—he probably would have objected to me as well. It is far better to say that, if the customary practice is to appoint the leaders of Back-Bench Members, it is not for Opposition Members to object.
The kernel of the speech of the hon. Member for Workington was that people who earn money outside—directors, advisers and consultants—should be disqualified. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not what he said."] The essence of his point was that hon. Members should withdraw from the Committee of Privileges in certain circumstances. If I have misdescribed what he said, he should let me know now; if he remains in his place I shall presume that I am correct.

Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way, but I am not sure whether it is worth doing so.

Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to find that it is educational to give way. The point that the Opposition are making is that money that comes into hon. Members' pockets for their parliamentary work and actions that they take within the House should be stopped.

The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point—that no Opposition Member should receive money directly from a trade union. The Register of Members' Interests, however, shows that 14 per cent. of Labour Members receive money directly from outside—from trade unions or consultancies —and 85 per cent. of eligible Conservative Members receive money from outside. The Committee should consist of Members who receive no money directly from outside for their parliamentary work.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been paying much attention during the past Parliament. The Labour party's health spokesman is sponsored by a health union and its transport spokesman is sponsored by a transport union. I hope that the Committee of Privileges will decide that this is the last Parliament in which that will occur. Why cannot Opposition Front-Bench Members give up their cash for votes and their union sponsorship while they are on the Front Bench? That is a challenge to them. Can they not get elected without the money?
They say that it is of no personal benefit. Why will they not say, "I will not take the money while I am a Front-Bench spokesperson"? If they intend to stand for the shadow Cabinet, they should give up the sponsorship. They may then be admitted to the Committee of Privileges in accordance with the prejudices of the hon. Member for Workington.
The critical issue is the fact that the Committee must produce a report on the newspaper aspect. I hope that the House will reject the amendment and accept the motion. I also hope that the Committee will produce a separate report on the newspaper aspect rather than an omnibus report dealing with membership, with the general circumstances to which you, Madam Speaker, referred, and with the newspaper aspect. I would like the chance to give evidence to say that Members who are appointed should take this final test: they should do only those things that they are willing to tell their local newspaper. If they are willing to say it, they can do it: they will then be in the clear.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but I start on a point of disagreement. He said that no hon. Member had a vested interest in seeing the House brought into disrepute. I declare that I have an interest in seeing the House brought into disrepute. I spend a great deal of my political time trying to ensure that the House of Commons is brought into disrepute with the Scottish people. My modest efforts in that direction are often overtaken by Conservative Members who inadvertently do more damage to the House than I have yet been able to do.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if he will contain himself for a few moments.
I shall make three simple points about this motion, but I shall be happy if the House, in its wisdom, ignores my advice entirely because the Scottish people will then continue to hold it in ill repute.
First, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has left our proceedings for the time being, said that he wanted the Committee to draw up a code


of practice to include a full cross-section of the House, reflecting all its interests, activities and foibles. That is fundamentally incorrect.
If people with consultancies, whose parliamentary activities may be influenced by remuneration from elsewhere, want to justify their case to the Committee, they should do so to people without consultancies. With respect to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the same should apply to trade union sponsorship of constituency parties. If that issue is considered by the Committee, it should be justified to a Committee whose members are not in the same position.
My second point refers to the two or more hon. Members whose cases the Committee may consider. How could a Committee report be credible if the Committee is stuffed. full of hon. Members with consultancies, or Members whom the press could accuse of having a vested interest? If any hon. Member believes that a Committee report of that composition would be credible, whether or not they read Sun editorials, he or she must be blind, deaf and pretty dumb. To believe that would seriously underrate the anxiety and contempt illustrated by the public's reaction to the events of the past few days.
It is a simple point of logic that, if hon. Members want the Committee report to be credible, it should not be vulnerable to the attacks that we have already seen in the papers.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My third point is simple, and refers specifically to the right hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and the subject of the amendment. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman described as the shop steward of Tory Back-Bench Members. I do not know whether it was his own description or one foisted on him. If the right hon. Gentleman is a shop steward, one would expect him, as in an industrial tribunal, to appear before the Committee for the defence rather than to be on the Committee.
I hope that the House continues to ignore those three simple points, and thus continues to be held in large-scale disrepute by the Scottish people. None the less, I suggest that the House pays attention to the amendment.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Two assumptions underlie the amendment: first, that the only vested interest that matters is financial; and, secondly, that it is impossible for hon. Members, no matter how experienced, honest or sincere, to suspend their personal judgment while considering a matter of national importance or significance to the House.
It is perfectly clear that some hon. Members have a passionate commitment to certain causes. In the view of most of us, those causes frequently blind their judgment when they consider important matters, whether they are deeply committed to a faith, have had an experience that has coloured their judgment, or are under pressure from relations or friends.
Let us take a hypothetical example. If a Member of the House who is either still a member of a firm of solicitors, or has been for many years a solicitor, speaks about legal

aid, how do we know whether he is speaking about legal aid objectively, or whether his judgment is coloured by his experience? It is, of course, impossible to know.
The reason why I believe that the House should be wary about trying to go down a path that, in effect, attempts to make people either saints or a type of eunuch, is that I believe that people want from the House the wide range of aspirations, beliefs, prejudices and occupations that they can find outside. It is a criticism of the House that, on the whole, the range of occupations in it is too narrow, and it is a great mistake for the House to go too far down the road of trying to define precisely what is and is not an interest that should be taken into account.
Secondly, I believe that it is common to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when considering a matter, they suspend their personal view. How many Members of the House, for example, have been visited in their surgeries by people who, in their view, are despicable—unattractive, unpleasant people, with a cause to pursue of which they disapprove? However, because, at some point in the game, those people have been subjected to injustice by the system, it is our duty and our privilege, and indeed our job, to try to ensure that, at least in that narrow respect, their injustice is rectified.
The capacity to suspend one's personal view is therefore an integral part of being a Member of Parliament. I accept that some hon. Members have enormous difficulty in doing so, but, on the whole, the longer one spends in this place, the better one becomes at separating one's personal interests and the objective principle.
I believe that hon. and right hon. Members of the seniority of those who have been proposed for the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), have arrived at a point where their objectivity can be relied on. If the sceptics on the Opposition Benches care to reflect, they will see that no circumstance is more likely to reinforce their capacity to be objective than the fact that they are under such intense scrutiny, and that their interests have been so widely declared and canvassed.
For those reasons, I would reject the amendment.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have to declare a non-interest, in being a member of a trade union that is not affiliated to the Labour party, and I am not sponsored by any union.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is right, up to a point. One of the qualities that Members of Parliament should have is that of being able to distinguish matters in which they might have a self-interest from those that affect the interests of their constituents. Madam Speaker, you have asked us to view this matter in relation to the names on a list before us. I hope that what I say is in order, because I shall ask the questions that my constituents will ask about that list—the questions that they have a right to ask—and about the criteria that should be applied to Members who are on it, or perhaps not on it. I hope that that brings all that I have to say into order.
The public outside, and indeed even the scribes, may have misunderstood that the matter before us is one of privilege. It is a question whether anything is being done that interferes with the proper privileges of the House to do its work, and a question of protecting the public and our citizens. That is, as I understand it, what privilege is about.


It so happens that we have not had a matter of privilege in the current Parliament, and the customary procedures for appointing a Committee on Privileges have been followed through, even though the specific matter that has now been referred to it is unusual. My first argument, therefore, is that we have, in a sense, a difficulty in our procedures, because, when we look at the list, we are not specifically referring to the problem before us, which has arisen from the behaviour of two Members, but appointing a Committee to defend the privileges of the House, which intrinsically are the privileges of the public.
My second argument is that the problem is not new. In the late 1960s, a Member of the House was referred to the Privileges Committee, or another Committee that was set up, because he was involved in a foreign Government. That Committee, under the chairmanship of the then right hon. George Strauss, reported on remuneration for services arising directly out of membership of the House.
Two broad solutions were canvassed; that there should be a register—which there was not then—and that there should be a code of conduct. The Strauss Committee came down on the side of a code of conduct, because it was felt at that time that the introduction of a register might not only be a safeguard, but be used as a means of license. Some people may feel that that may be occurring.
I shall read part of the conclusions of the Strauss Committee, HC.57 69/70. The Committee advocated a code of conduct, and the second paragraph was as follows:
That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of the House that a Member should bring forward by speech or question, or advocate in this House or among his fellow Members any bill, motion, matter or cause for a fee, payment, retainer or reward, direct or indirect, which he has received, is receiving or expects to receive (paragraph 110).
That was not adopted.
It so happened that, after other problems in the early 1970s, the solution of a register was adopted. I confess that, as an advocate of that, I may have been a little too trusting in what the hon. Member for Mid-Kent properly pointed out, because I regarded a register as protection for Members, such as solicitors, who perhaps ought to be in a difficult position, and as a warning fence, so that, if that fence was transgressed, it would be visible.
Perhaps it might have been wiser to have a code of conduct. I believe that my constituents, looking at the list, would apply the Strauss Committee's criterion, and if they did so, the list would be considered unsatisfactory in many respects.

Mr. Rupert Allason: In my judgment, the names on the Order Paper should be trusted to uphold the traditions of the conventions of the House. There is great anxiety outside the House about the events of the past couple of weeks.
Before I go any further, I should declare that, as well as having been a journalist in the past, I have no outside consultancies or sponsorships, and I am no longer a member of the National Union of Journalists, but I am a director of my own small publishing business, which helps to publish my own books.
There is anxiety outside the House about the conduct of hon. Members, and I think that it is up to the Committee to decide exactly what took place, and whether the conduct of those Members is as reported by the press.
In your wisdom, Madam Speaker, you decided, when you announced your decision, to ensure that the Committee

would not be a hanging committee to sit in judgment on those individuals, but that you would take the issue as a much wider one, and examine the conduct of the newspaper involved. Only some of the transcripts have been published so far. There is considerable disquiet outside the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is just getting into his stride, but I think that he has had long enough to do that. He must speak to the motion, which is very narrow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the Order Paper with him. The motion relates to the names of the members of the Committee. All we are debating tonight is whether those names are acceptable to the House or whether we should accept the amendment. That is the narrow motion.

Mr. Allason: I fully accept your guidance, Madam Speaker, as always.
I shall say a word in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), whose name has been somewhat traduced during the past few minutes of debate. As a Back Bencher, I can say that he is a doughty defender of Back Benchers' rights, and is widely respected on both sides of the House. Furthermore, he is no lackey of the Whips, and would be no part of a stitch-up by the Government Whips to whitewash this event.
There is grave disquiet about what has taken place, and it extends to members of the press, who are also extremely worried by the events of the past few weeks. I was trained as a journalist by, among others, Desmond Wilcox, and I worked with journalists like Barrie Penrose and Simon Freeman. We worked on exposing Whitehall cover-ups.
If I have a criticism of the names on the Order Paper, it is that there is no journalist on the list. If there were, it would provide an opportunity to examine the conduct of the journalists who participated in the exercise. Maurice Chittenden, a former member of the staff of the News of the World, is the "Insight" editor of The Sunday Times. His role in the affair will have to be examined.
Everyone in the House would agree that if, as claimed, six months ago an individual complained that he had been asked for a sum of money in return for a question, that would be a serious matter. Whether it is right that that occurred remains to be seen. If the list on the Order Paper included a journalist, it would be possible to examine the standards of journalism that The Sunday Times has exercised.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the members of the Committee would be well advised to consider the specific events first, and leave the general policy until later, because general policy made in the heat of specific events often turns out—

Madam Speaker: Order. The House is not giving guidance to the Committee, but discussing the make-up of the Committee.

Mr. Allason: The make-up of the Committee would be strengthened if it included a journalist, particularly somebody with access to Fleet street. I believe that, far from there having been research into a complaint that occurred six months ago, an investigation was conducted by The Sunday Times in a short time because Roger Cook's programme on Ian Greer Associates could not be shown. If


the list on the Order Paper were properly to reflect the desire of the House to get to the bottom of all the events, there should be an opportunity to cast wider than the list.
The House has an important responsibility this evening. It has to protect its rights and privileges. It also has to ensure that its integrity is retained, and that there is confidence outside the House, not just in hon. Members on both sides, but also in the membership of the Committee. I believe that the Committee, as described on the Order Paper, will command that confidence.
I also believe that, if the report is published and if it is to gain widespread respect, it will certainly have to examine the conduct of The Sunday Times and its journalists with the same determination as it examines the conduct of the two hon. Members whose reputations have been so traduced.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I had better declare my interest from the start. I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. In fact, the Bolsover constituency was sponsored long before I came to this place. It should be put on record that in many cases, but not all, sponsored Members of Parliament inherit sponsored seats.
I do not agree with the National Union of Mineworkers on occasion, and I vote against it in the House. Not long ago, Arthur Scargill said that the union was in favour of proportional representation. I said that I was not on board and I fought in the union to change the policy—and succeeded. When Jo Gormley got the National Union of Mineworkers to accept a pay policy under the Labour Government in 1974 and 1979, I told him to get stuffed and said I would not support a pay policy. He said that I would be de-sponsored if I carried on. I told him to get on with it. We must set the record straight about where some of us stand on this issue.
Way back in the 1970s, when the Maudling case and the Poulson scandal took place, we set up a Committee the same as the one proposed today, and had a debate about setting it up. It was set up with Members who belonged to the gentlemen's club—there were moonlighters and consultants. Some of them were from the Labour party, but the gentlemen's club decided that those involved should not be touched, even though councillors went to goal for lesser offences in the Poulson scandal.
We can hardly get anybody from the House of Commons to judge what the two hon. Members or others have been doing when relationships have been set up—relationships where some people belong to one party and some to another. Those with consultancies could hardly decide that those two hon. Members should be condemned, for the good reason that they are probably tabling questions by the barrel-load all the time, and nobody knows how much they are being paid for that.
It would be difficult for a Committee of the House of Commons to judge those two hon. Members. If a public inquiry can be set up to examine the conduct of Ministers in relation to the Scott inquiry, we should do the same on this occasion. It is not possible to have people in this cosy little place judging members of the same club.
Although I shall vote for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) with alacrity, and vote against the setting up of the

Committee, I do not think that that is satisfactory. We complain all the time about the police examining complaints about the police. We complain about all the organisations that examine their own affairs—we say that of Lloyd's and the City of London. Surely it would be wrong to agree to set up a Committee of Members of Parliament—irrespective of where they stand, although many of them are right hon. Members—to look into the conduct of other Members of Parliament.
I am not arguing merely because of the money aspect —people form relationships one with another that might have nothing to do with money. During the Maudling case, people said that some Labour Members might vote to kick Maudling out of Parliament—not many of us did: I think it was about 20—but might vote to keep Albert Roberts, as he was sponsored by the NUM. Of course I did not, but that is what happens in this place.
That is why it is important to tell the public that it is not satisfactory to have Marcus Fox or anyone with consultancies on the Committee so that it is overwhelmed by directorships. However we frame it, if we here are to judge two other Members of Parliament, the result is bound to be tainted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right to campaign to improve the Register and reduce payments, but I am clear that we cannot satisfactorily deal with the issue by setting up a Committee of Members of Parliament to judge other Members of Parliament. That Committee will not come up with the correct answer to satisfy the public.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has demonstrated clearly and convincingly that he will do in this House what he believes to be right. I wonder why he is not willing to give the same credit to other hon. Members.
I oppose the amendment because, if I correctly understood the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and those speaking in support of it, they were basically saying that a Member could not sit on the Committee if he had an outside interest that arose directly from his membership of this House.
I find it astonishing that those hon. Members could even make such comments, when everyone knows that numerous hon. Members write articles in favour of specific matters or in support of special interest groups. Hon. Members regularly write columns in national newspapers, and they are well paid for doing so. To try to convince me and others that that work is not a direct result of their membership of this House is incredible nonsense. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) regularly writes vitriolic columns—I am sure that he is well paid for it—trying to denigrate this Parliament. He acknowledged that work, but he failed to acknowledge the fact that he is probably well paid for it.
I have never understood why, if someone is a company director for 20 or 30 years before he comes to this place, somehow, the minute that he enters the House, it is wrong for him to continue being a director. That is nonsense. It is no more wrong to continue being a director than it is to continue being a lawyer, a teacher, an economist or someone writing lengthy articles.
The plain truth is that we bring to the House all our different experiences, all of which are valuable. The


members of the Committee should reflect that experience so that they can make their judgment on hon. Members knowing all the aspects of being a Member of the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: When the issue first came to the attention of the House, we had to decide three things—should there be an inquiry, how wide should it be and who should conduct it? It is the Labour party's long-established view that there should be a wide inquiry, and that it should be conducted by the House rather than being an internal inquiry by the Conservative party. Following the passing of last Wednesday's motion, that is also the view of the House. The issue we have to decide now is who should conduct that inquiry.
I was very keen—my motion on Wednesday reflected this—that the House should look not just at the serious issues dealt with in the article in The Sunday Times. but at the wider issues that arise from the article and from your statement a week last Tuesday, Madam Speaker. The Committee will examine issues such as the complaint raised more recently about the way in which our banqueting facilities are booked by those who have interests in public affairs companies— [Interruption.] The matter is relevant, as I shall show later.
We are considering, as the public would expect us to do, not just how to make progress, but who should serve on the Committee. The public expect us to get on with that, and to do so with integrity. If someone has a long-standing involvement with a public affairs company—perhaps even one that regularly books the banqueting facilities—it would be difficult for him to consider with an open mind the rights and wrongs of providing the facilities of this place for what are essentially Conservative and business interests. I do not believe that the public expect hon. Members with extensive business interests to be judge in their own cause.
That point was very well made in the debate last Wednesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intervened on me while I was speaking to my motion in as neutral a way as I could. I responded by saying that I thought that the point he had made had been taken on board by both sides of the House. That was my understanding at the time. I must tell my hon. Friend that, as the person who moved that motion, I have taken no part and have had no involvement in even the selection of names from the Labour party, let alone the selection of names from the Conservative party.
The issue that arises not just for the Labour party but for the Conservative party is to consider carefully who is to be appointed to the Committee. I have every confidence in the nominations from the Labour party. We have taken great care to nominate Members whom we believe the public will judge to be well qualified to serve, and who will be acceptable to the whole House. I have to say—this will not be popular with some of my hon. Friends—that it is riot for us to choose the Conservative party nominees. We cannot pick each other's sides. Certainly we would not allow the Conservative party to say who the Labour nominees should be.
However, my saying that does not relieve the Conservative party of the obligation to behave in the way the public expect, which is exactly the way that the Labour party has behaved. It is important for the reputation of the

House that the whole Committee is free of the charge of conflict of interests. The ultimate judge will be the public verdict on the Committee's report. Anything less than the most vigorous inquiry and review, untainted by any special pleading, will be very injurious to the reputation of the House.

Mr. Newton: You, Madam Speaker, may appreciate that I find myself in a position which, if not unique, is certainly unprecedented for almost a quarter of a century. I am responding to a debate on the establishment of a Committee of Privileges, and I am advised that it is the first time since 1970 that a motion on the membership of such a Committee has not been put and accepted forthwith.
That did not happen last night. I make no complaint about that; I am simply making the point that it is unusual for the House not to accept a motion along the lines of that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and instead to want to debate the merits of the names contained in the motion.
Another reason that I make that point is that there is an added difficulty for me. For reasons of convention, which the House understands, the motion is not in my name—although it is appropriate that I should speak to it—but in fact contains my name. I shall be a member of the Committee if the House accepts the motion, and even if it were instead to accept the amendment, because no one has been unkind enough to try to remove me from the Committee.
I echo a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) about the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours): "Although I sometimes find him tiresome, I have a very considerable respect for him." The hon. Gentleman put to me a considerable number of questions to which I suspect he knows I cannot properly respond tonight, for the reasons that I have given. Not only am I proposed as a member of the Committee, but if the normal conventions of such Committees are followed, I shall be its Chairman.
Virtually every comment that has been put tonight and the specific questions raised seem to ask me to prejudge either the view that the Committee should take of its remit, the way in which it should work, or even, to a degree, the conclusions that it should reach. I simply do not think that it would be proper for me to attempt to respond to that against the background that I have described.
I simply wish to repeat what I said at the outset—that in my judgment the nominations reflect the established and accepted precedents, including the membership of both the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 Committee. I believe that the proposed Committee—very much including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox)—is one in which the House can have confidence in the discharge of the responsibility that it has laid on it. I therefore hope that the House will reject the amendment, and accept the motion as tabled.

Amendment proposed to the proposed motion, To leave out "Sir Marcus Fox".—[Mr. Mullin.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 158.

Division No. 302]
[8.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
MacShane, Denis


Byers, Stephen
Mahon, Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Morley, Elliot


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mullin, Chris


Chisholm, Malcolm
O'Hara, Edward


Clapham, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Primarolo, Dawn


Corston, Ms Jean
Salmond, Alex


Cox, Tom
Simpson, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Skinner, Dennis


Dafis, Cynog
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Wigley, Dafydd


Eastham, Ken
Winnick, David


Etherington, Bill
Wise, Audrey


Faulds, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony


Hain, Peter



Hanson, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Home Robertson, John



Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Forman, Nigel


Alton, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
French, Douglas


Ashby, David
Fry, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Gallie, Phil


Atkins, Robert
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baldry, Tony
Gorst, Sir John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bates, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Booth, Hartley
Harris, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hawkins, Nick


Bowis, John
Hawksley, Warren


Brandreth, Gyles
Hendry, Charles


Brazier, Julian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hunter, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Butterfill, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cash, William
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Chapman, Sydney
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Clappison, James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coe, Sebastian
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Conway, Derek
Legg, Barry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lidington, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lightbown, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lord, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Luff, Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dicks, Terry
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dover, Den
Malone, Gerald


Duncan, Alan
Mans, Keith


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunn, Bob
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mates, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Elletson, Harold
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fabricant, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector





Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholls, Patrick
Sykes, John


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rendel, David
Thomason, Roy


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walden, George


Sackville, Tom
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Willetts, David


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Stephen, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 23.

Division No. 303]
[8.52 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alton, David
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baldry, Tony
French, Douglas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Gallie, Phil


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hawksley, Warren


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hendry, Charles


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Clappison, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Coe, Sebastian
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cormack, Patrick
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dicks, Terry
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dover, Den
Legg, Barry






Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Patnick, Irvine
Ward, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo.'Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Rendel, David
Watts, John


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Timothy Wood, and Mr. Derek Conway.


Soames, Nicholas



Spencer, Sir Derek





NOES


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mullin, Chris


Chisholm, Malcolm
Primarolo, Dawn


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Salmond, Alex


Cox, Tom
Simpson, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Etherington, Bill
Wise, Audrey


Faulds, Andrew



Hain, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Hanson, David
Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.


Home Robertson, John



Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges.

Orders of the Day — Hinchingbrooke Hospital (Maternity Services)

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Perhaps I should begin by explaining that women in Cambridge have choices about where they can have their babies under the national health service. They can choose to go to Addenbrooke's, which is high-tech and is appropriate for natural births and high-risk babies. There is also Hinchingbrooke hospital, which, although it lies in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon, nevertheless is within travelling distance of Cambridge.
The advantage of Hinchingbrooke for many women is that it is small, more personal and is organised on completely different lines from the large teaching hospital at Addenbrooke's. It has a rather unusual organisation. It has no registrars, only consultants, nursing staff and senior house officers. A significant number of women will choose Hinchingbrooke because it is small and because of its personal nature, but perhaps more importantly, because of its very low perinatal mortality rates. I am sure that the Minister will want to stress that point when he responds.
If a hospital normally deals with low-risk cases, it would be expected to have a low perinatal mortality rate. I suspect that the lowest perinatal mortality rate of all is among those women whose babies are born at home. I hope that that will not be a statistical argument to be used to justify the inaction on the case that I want to talk about this evening.
Choices have always been available to women in Cambridge, and I hope that that will continue. When I telephoned the chief executive of Cambridge district health authority this morning, he told me that there had been rumours that Hinchingbrooke was under some threat of closure. It is important to the women in my constituency who want a choice—and also to the women in the Prime Minister's constituency who want a local hospital—that it remains open.
I certainly do not intend to fuel the closure rumours; nor do I want the hospital to be closed. I must add, however, that at least two serious complaints have been made about it by women in my constituency. It is vital for confidence in the system to be restored, and for women who have their babies at Hinchingbrooke to be convinced that past mistakes will not recur.
This is not just a case of everyone being more vigilant, or of blaming one or two individuals. It is a case of engaging in an open, honest and frank discussion about the things that have gone wrong, and ensuring that management procedures are in place to minimise the risks in future.
The case that I am going to describe involves both clinical and management failure. I know that managers al Hinchingbrooke will say that they have spent many hours investigating the complaints. That is true; but what has emerged after many hours, days or even weeks of investigation is a complete whitewash. There is no formal indication of where the mistakes were made, no indication of the procedures that were not followed or were not in existence and no indication that the management want to


do anything except hush it all up and hope that there will be no unfavourable publicity. The point of this debate is to bring the issues out into the open.
I am sure that the health service commissioner, who produced a report recently, will agree with some of the points that I am going to make. His most recent report states:
It is not just inefficient, it is pitiful and shabby when NHS authorities make out that they welcome complaints but then deal woefully with them.
The complaint that I shall be examining has been dealt with woefully, and inadequately.
My frustration, and that of my constituents, is compounded by the fact that the responsible authorities are no longer democratically accountable to the electorate whom they serve. There is no one, apart from the Secretary of State, to whom I can turn and say, "You are the elected representative who is responsible for this mess." There is no one to whom I can say, "You are the person who is accountable at the end of the day."
Trusts and district health authorities no longer have elected representatives who are accountable to local people. The trusts have appointees who are well paid for their services, who hold their meetings in secret and who do not have to listen or respond to my complaints or those of my constituents. They treat the trust as a business, maximising its profits, trying to ensure good public relations and making certain that the district health authorities will continue to purchase their services by providing them as cheaply as possible. There is no incentive for the trust to admit its mistakes or fully investigate the complaints, as the following account will reveal.
I referred earlier to two serious cases. They are the cases of Mrs. Cheree Graves-Bacchus and Ruth McCall. I know that Mrs. Graves-Bacchus is deeply unhappy with the clinical treatment and the management of her complaint; however, the case that I shall use as an illustration, and describe in some depth, is that of Ruth McCall. I intend to describe in graphic detail the events as they occurred.
The story began on 28 February 1992 when Ruth was admitted to Hinchingbrooke, 19 weeks pregnant and experiencing labour contractions. Sadly, the baby was stillborn four days later, at 20 weeks' gestation. A post-mortem revealed that the cause of the premature, pre-viable delivery was infection with the bacterium group B streptococcus. That bacterium causes virulent uterine infection, but it is treatable and, if caught at an early stage, it can be treated with antibiotics.
At a follow-up appointment with the consultant at Hinchingbrooke, Mr. John Hare—Ruth's own consultant —assured her that any future pregnancy would be monitored closely for the same infection and that she should also regularly take preventive antibiotic treatment.
Ruth became pregnant again and two months later a swab taken by her general practitioner showed another bacterial infection. She was prescribed antibiotics and the pregnancy continued. She was considered a high-risk case and was seen by Mr. Hare every two weeks and was regularly prescribed swabs and antibiotics.
As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following her previous experience Ruth feels a certain amount of anxiety and she is given counselling for this by the midwife counsellor at Hinchingbrooke, Pat Ingham. She has been

told that following her previous experience changes have been made at the obstetrics unit and that, first, patients would be allocated to the continuing care of the on-duty consultant until their own consultant became available. Secondly—this is significant—she was told that all premature labour patients would be given immediate antibiotic drug therapy.
That did a great deal to reassure Ruth. However, on Saturday 28 November 1992 Ruth's membranes ruptured at 29 weeks' pregnant. She arrived at Hinchingbrooke at midday and saw the midwife, who recorded the baby's heartbeat. It appeared that all was well. The heartbeat was strong and regular and there was no sign of abnormality.
Mr. Hare was on holiday. The on-duty consultant was Mr. Al Kurdi, who has rather different professional views from Mr. Hare. In view of what she had been promised by Mr. Hare, Ruth was stunned and upset when Mr. Al Kurdi told her that in his view a genital wart virus was the cause of the premature rupture of the membranes. I believe that, although that was Mr. Al Kurdi's professional judgment, there was no evidence that Ruth had a genital wart virus and no scientific evidence that the virus causes premature rupture of the membranes. Mr. Hare later agreed that there is no research to suggest that, and that Mr. Al Kurdi's insistence obscured his judgment. He ignored the existing hospital guidelines and Mr. Hare's own care plan, which stated clearly that Ruth would be given antibiotics if she was admitted early.
Mr. Al Kurdi refused to consider either delivery or antibiotic treatment. Dr. Miles, Hinchingbrooke's consultant paediatrician, later agreed that, if antibiotics had been prescribed, the baby would have had a better chance of survival. No swab was taken to check for infection despite the fact that a one-hour swab test is available to detect this particular group B streptococcus bacterium and that that was later said to be the normal practice. Mr. Al Kurdi said that he did not feel that it was necessary.
Ruth was given a steroid injection at about 2 o'clock. Mr. Hare later commented that that was reckless without antibiotics. Ruth was then admitted to the Hazel ward. That is the ante-natal ward, not the labour ward, which suggested to staff, according to Mr. Hare, that Ruth was not high risk. Ruth also asked midwives for antibiotics, but was told that Mr. Al Kurdi had forbidden them for 24 hours. By this time, Ruth was becoming anxious, but, like so many women in that situation, she felt that perhaps the hospital knew best and that she was not best placed to judge. However, many of us who have been through pregnancy and childbirth will understand the turmoil that she must have felt in those crucial few hours.
During the night, Ruth had a loose bowel movement and reported that the baby was moving less actively. However, those signs of labour and foetal distress were ignored by the staff. By 6 am Ruth was getting desperate and asked for the baby's heart to be monitored, which was done at 7 am. It revealed that the heartbeat was slower than usual, but that, too, was ignored.
By that stage, Ruth felt panicky, cold and ill. She checked her sanitary pad and found a green slime, a highly indicative sign of infection. She begged to see Mr. Al Kurdi immediately. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your imagination—how would anyone feel in such circumstances?
At 9 am, Ruth asked for a full cardio-tocograph and, to her distress, the midwife found no heartbeat. Ruth was now desperately cold and hysterical and persistently asking for


Mr. Al Kurdi. She was given four different answers as to where he might be. The senior house officer on duty arrived before Mr. Al Kurdi, but said that he could not do anything as he had not been trained to deal with the ultrasound machine. Mr. Hare later said that it was inappropriate to leave a senior house officer in charge.
At approximately 10.30 am, Mr. Al Kurdi finally arrived, some 21 hours after he had first seen Ruth, leaving her without any medical care. He looked at the baby on the portable ultrasound scanning machine—there was no heartbeat and the baby was motionless. Mr. Al Kurdi claimed that the screen was too small to see what was going on and that he would do another scan the following day. Ruth and her partner were outraged and the midwife burst into tears, at which point Mr. Al Kurdi admitted that it was highly likely that the baby was dead.
Mr. Al Kurdi then made a number of extraordinary suggestions. The first was that Ruth must have bled at some time in early pregnancy but concealed the fact. When a baby dies in such circumstances, it is almost inevitable that the mother will feel guilty and feel that she is to blame, so the effect of that suggestion on Ruth was extremely distressing. The suggestion was also untrue.
Mr. Al Kurdi then suggested that the cord had prolapsed. He denied that infection could have caused early death and claimed that at 29 weeks the baby would probably not have survived anyway. These points were later said to be false by Mr. Hare. He also said that in Ruth's case his established treatment plan should have been carried out by another consultant.
I have outlined the clinical incompetence in this case and the tragedy to which it led; I shall now describe the mistakes made at the hospital after the stillbirth of Ruth's second baby. Ruth was in a very distressed state, but she made an initial complaint and subsequently sent a letter, neither of which was acknowledged immediately. After the post mortem, Mr. Hare wrote to Ruth giving her a late and inaccurate notification of a placental chromosomal anomaly, for which he later apologised. I do not usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but, if I were trying to dissuade a mother in those circumstances from continuing with her complaint, that would be a highly effective way of doing so—trying to put the blame on the woman and on some congenital abnormality.
On 26 January Ruth wrote to Mrs. Wells Johnson, the nursing director at Hinchingbrooke, asking for a full investigation, and action to prevent similar events from occurring. Mrs. Wells Johnson responded by suggesting that the baby's death was due to a prolapsed cord. That was not true, and again, she later apologised for saying it.
Two weeks after her daughter's death Ruth telephoned Mrs. Pat Ingham, the midwife who had been counselling her for anxiety during the pregnancy. Pat Ingham said that she could not speak to Ruth, but she telephoned Mr. Hare, who in turn telephoned Ruth's general practitioner. The GP visited Ruth and told her not to contact Pat Ingham again because whistleblowing in the NHS was risky, and she could lose her job for speaking to Ruth.
The stress on whistleblowing is significant, because that is one of the reasons why no full and accurate investigation of what happened is taking place. There is much nervousness about the case, and I believe that the people who know the truth are afraid to speak out.
Ruth's solicitor then wrote to Mr. Morris, the Huntingdon coroner, asking for an inquest. It was to be the first inquest held in Huntingdon to investigate a stillbirth.

Mr. Al Kurdi stated under oath that the baby may not have been normal. Mr. Hare agreed later that that was clinically irrelevant. Mr. Al Kurdi also said that prescribing antibiotics would have raised false hopes about the baby's survival. He also stated that he could not consider delivery, because of the low survival rate in the Hinchingbrooke special care baby unit. That was also later denied by the hospital. Mr. Al Kurdi claimed that a swab had not been taken because of a misunderstanding. The hospital pathologist who conducted the post mortem confirmed that the baby was normal, and that death had been caused by overwhelming streptococcus B infection.
During the inquest, what was most distressing to Ruth was the fact that, after Mr. Al Kurdi finished his evidence, the Hinchingbrooke nursing director, Mrs. Wells Johnson, put her arms round his shoulder and said, "Well done." After the inaccurate statements that Ruth believed had been made at the inquest, that was highly distressing. The other important aspect of the case that it is important to mention is Ruth's belief that Mr. Al Kurdi misled the coroner under oath, and had also placed a misleading entry in the case notes, suggesting that he had seen her much earlier than he did.
Following the inquest, also at Ruth's insistence, a meeting was held attended by Ruth, Mr. Hare, Dr. Miles, the Hinchingbrooke paediatrician, Christabel Mulvey, the Cambridge community health council representative, arid Mrs. Wells Johnson. All Ruth's complaints were noted in the minutes, and afterwards Mrs. Wells Johnson wrote to Ruth confirming that changes to the unit discussed at the meeting would be carried out. However, Ruth had been promised that on a previous occasion, and in view of her previous experiences and of the occurrences at the inquest, she was not satisfied that a full and impartial investigation had been carried out, or that any disciplinary action was contemplated.
On 1 April, Ruth met Mr. Willis, the chief executive at Hinchingbrooke, and Dr. Henderson, the medical director, and told them her view. Also on 1 April, there was an incident at Hinchingbrooke which led to Mr. Al Kurdi being accused of indecent assault against another patient and he was suspended from all duties. On 5 April, I wrote to the chief executive of Cambridge district health authority outlining the case and asking for an investigation.
Ruth was advised by the district health authority that disciplinary action would not be taken and she was told that an annexe B disciplinary investigation was considered appropriate. The person she saw at the district health authority dictated a letter for her to write requesting such action. An annexe B disciplinary investigation is reserved for very serious complaints. The Cambridge district health authority obviously believed that this was a very serious complaint and it supported Ruth in her action to get some effective disciplinary investigation.
However, Dr. Henderson then wrote to Ruth proposing to initiate an annexe E inquiry. This is an internal disciplinary investigation for less serious offences. Ruth was concerned that her case was not considered serious enough for an annexe B inquiry, despite the advice from the Cambridge district health authority, the purchaser in the case.
As Hinchingbrooke is now a trust hospital, the decision on which line of inquiry to follow was no longer in the hands of the director of public health; it was up to the individual hospital concerned. On 1 June, Ruth had a meeting with Dr. O'Brien, the regional director of public


health, who stated that, if Mr. Al Kurdi was acquitted of indecent assault charges, he should return to the hospital to face an annexe B inquiry. He wrote to Hinchingbrooke recommending that, and he also wrote to the Department of Health deploring its outdated circulars which predated the health service reforms.
The outdated circulars referred to complaints procedures and we feel that that was one reason why Hinchingbrooke had not taken effective action in the case. Ruth then received a letter from Mr. Willis stating that it had now been decided that an annexe B disciplinary action should be proceeded with, but that because of the time scale needed to gather medical evidence, it seemed logical that Mr. Al Kurdi's case should cover Ruth's case and that of the complainant in the court case.
In June 1993, Ruth received a letter from Mr. Willis —a situation report—in which he said:
We have therefore recommended that action as laid down in Annexe B should be initiated and our Chairman has decided to proceed. We are therefore at the stage described in paragraphs 6 and 17a of Annexe B. The Chairman will be writing to Mr. Al Kurdi to inform him that he considers on the evidence presented so far that a prima facie case exists which must be answered … It therefore seems logical and is the opinion offered by our legal adviser and agreed by Dr. O'Brien that the disciplinary proceedings in Mr. Al Kurdi's case should cover both your case and that of the complainant in the court case.
Mr. Willis also said that the unofficial estimate by Howard Weston, the hospital's solicitors, of the cost of an annexe B procedure was that it would be a minimum of £100,000 and was more likely to approach £200,000. That point is also significant. The fact that the cost would fall on a small trust hospital is a point that the hospital would find very significant. Without a separate budget for disciplinary proceedings and complaints, it was almost inevitable that the hospital should weigh the cost carefully in deciding whether to continue along that line of complaint. Mr. Willis went on to say, confirming my worst fears and Ruth's worst fears:
It would be irresponsible of us to commit too much expenditure, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and when, as you know, we have no budget to pay for it.
In January this year, at a meeting held at the regional health authority with Mr. Willis, Dr. Henderson, Christabel Mulvey and the new regional director of public health, Dr. Pat Troop, it was confirmed to Ruth that an annexe B inquiry would be held if Mr. Al Kurdi was acquitted and that, if he was found guilty, he would be summarily dismissed and the case would be referred to the General Medical Council. It is also agreed that he will remain suspended until the annexe B inquiry can take place. However, the hospital is most concerned about its public relations. Following Mr. Al Kurdi's acquittal, the hospital announced that it is delighted with the verdict and Mr. Al Kurdi can now return to work. That is in direct contradiction to everything that Ruth was previously told.
Following the dismantling of the annexe B inquiry, Ruth was offered a stage 3 complaint professional review which was undertaken on 27 May. The consultants verbally upheld Ruth's complaint and expressed fears about the safety of the unit. However, their formal report is brief—it has only one and a quarter pages. I have a copy here. The consultants did not even comment on the issue of misleading the coroner or the false entry in the case notes, and none of their serious verbal comments is recorded. I quote from the conclusions of the inquiry:

Mr. Al-Kurdi's management of Mrs. McCall on her admission to the labour ward on 28 November followed accepted lines of treatment but was at variance to the care plan she agreed with Mr. Hare.
We feel that having a care plan agreed between Mr. Hare and Mrs. McCall, it would have been wiser to have followed that agreement rather than departed from it.
We feel that the situation around the time of the death of Mrs. McCall's baby could have been handled more tactfully by Mr. Al-Kurdi.
That is a disgrace and is not fit to be called an investigation or an inquiry.
Christabel Mulvey of the community health council wrote to the regional director of public health to complain about that, and to ask whether the consultants concerned had been reported elsewhere. She has not yet received a reply to her letter. I understand that an annexe E inquiry, which is for less serious complaints, is still being proceeded with, but I must ask whether that is an appropriate response to Ruth's complaint.
There are many points of general concern about this case. The first point—I hope that the Minister will respond to this; it is perhaps one of the easiest points to respond to —is the Department of Health's circular relating to disciplinary action which has not been updated to take into account the NHS changes. We assume that the role of the director of public health is to be taken by the medical directors of the individual trusts. However, it is obvious that the circular needs to be updated as a matter of urgency.
To make my next point, I shall quote from an article by Liam J. Donaldson in the British Medical Journal on 14 May 1994. I quote first from the abstract. He said:
Existing procedures for hospital doctors within the NHS are inadequate to deal with serious problems. Dealing with such problems requires experience, objectivity and a willingness to tolerate unpleasantness and criticism. Because most consultants' contracts are now held by the NHS trust hospitals, however, those who have developed skill over the years in handling these complex issues are now no longer involved.
He went on to say:
I fear for the position of NHS trust medical directors. They are taking on this work for the first time but they will be dealing with their peers who work in the same institution. They will not he at an appropriate distance to sustain objectivity as were their predecessors, the regional Health Authority Medical Officers and Chair People.
That is something which has arisen as a result of the NHS reforms. It is a serious point, which I hope the Minister will deal with later. As the regional health authority is no longer involved, there is no supervision or monitoring of the handling of disciplinary actions by individual trusts.
The annexe B disciplinary procedure for serious matters is thorough and legalistic. The estimated cost by Hinchingbrooke of between £100,000 and £200,000 is probably accurate, but it has no funds to pay for the actions. Therefore decisions invariably have to be partly financial. I am sure that when the costs were borne by the regional health authority at least the risk was spread over many hospitals and budgets could bear that more easily.
Disciplinary procedures are obviously an employer-employee matter, yet Ruth was informed that annexe B was also to provide some response to her complaint. The citizens charter outlines the expectations that patients should reasonably have. In Ruth's case, however, there was neither a named carer nor a timely response to the complaint. When NHS trust hospitals fail to meet the standards of the citizen's charter there is no one to monitor any trust's adherence to the principles.
Cambridge health authority advised Ruth that an annexe B action was appropriate and one of its staff even dictated the letter that she wrote to request such action subsequently. In a letter of 3 June, Cambridge health authority described that as "informed advice".
Despite the early view of the Cambridge health authority and the regional director of public health that the very expensive and formal annexe B was the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with this serious case, it is now Hinchingbrooke's sole decision as to what action to take and, apparently, to change its mind as it sees fit.
I do not consider it appropriate that it should be the trust itself that should take the decision about how it investigates complaints against it. Stephen Thornton, the chief executive of the district health authority in Cambridge, wrote to me on 3 June and said:
it is for the Trust to find the resources to carry out investigations into complaints and to operate disciplinary procedures. Like any other element of their cost, this ultimately finds its way into the prices charged by the purchasers.
It is obvious that price has been an important element in investigating this complaint.
Complaints procedures and disciplinary procedures are currently under review. "Being Heard", which was published in May 1994, is a report of a review committee on NHS complaints procedures. Christabel Mulvey, of the community health council, wrote to the regional health authority saying:
I hope you share my concern about this report. For such a serious complaint to be dismissed in this manner is disgraceful. I also hope that you will be commenting to the Wilson Committee on the ineffectual nature of the Stage III complaints procedure and that something better must replace it.
I endorse that view totally. I hope that the Wilson committee will consider that serious complaint as part of its deliberations.
This is a serious complaint, but the issues have not been properly addressed for several reasons. First, the inexperience of the medical director of the trust, who is now taking the role previously played by the district or regional health authority, has been a factor. Secondly, Hinchingbrooke does not have a spare £100,000 to £200,000 to spend on mounting disciplinary actions and there is no separate budget for complaints. Thirdly, since the trust is now a business and needs to maximise its profit, any bad publicity will lead to fears of withdrawal of funds. Fourthly, clinical incompetence, if it is proved, may lead to litigation and even more expense for the hospital.
At no point has my constituent, Ruth McCall, sought financial compensation for the distress she has suffered. Her sole reason for pursuing the case is to ensure that other women and babies do not suffer as she did.
I began my speech by declaring that Hinchingbrooke is an important part of the provision of maternity services for women in my constituency. Confidence, however, needs to be restored. It is not restored by an internal disciplinary procedure that is a cover-up and a whitewash. Apart from the need to restore confidence, I hope that the hospital will consider some structural changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has compiled figures from answers to a number of parliamentary questions about the numbers of managers and health-care staff in each district health authority It emerged from his careful and perceptive analysis that Huntingdon health authority had the highest ratio of managers to health-care staff of any health authority. I

suggest that more money spent on direct health care and less on managers might have had a beneficial effect in the case that I have outlined.
Despite a disproportionately large number of managers there has been a singular failure to deal properly with a complaint. I shall quote the words of my constituent when summing up her experiences in a letter to the DHA on 7 July. She wrote:
I am not exaggerating when I say that the business of pursuing this complaint has been as distressing as the death of my babies and has left me exhausted, disheartened and truly despairing.
I have brought the matter to the Floor of the House because of the impossibility of getting the issues properly debated elsewhere. I hope that there will now be a full arid proper annexe B inquiry and that the Minister will give me his full support.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on being successful in the ballot and securing the debate. I am glad to take the opportunity to respond to her concerns about maternity services at Hinchingbrooke hospital, and especially about the case of Mrs. Ruth McCall.
As the hon. Lady is aware, the Hinchingbrooke hospital is a modern district general hospital. It has about 400 beds and provides the people of Huntingdon and of the surrounding area with a wide range of excellent in-patient and out-patient facilities and day-care services. It opened in 1983 and has quickly established a reputation as one of the best medium-sized general hospitals in the country.
The hon. Lady remarked on several occasions about the way in which the hospital is run. In particular, she said that it is run for profits. There are no such things as profits in the national health service. Hospitals have to try to balance their budgets against the resources that are made available to them through contracts with health authorities by providing as efficient a service as possible and by signing new or larger contracts with health authorities. There is no question of profit, and it gives something of a misleading impression of the motivations within hospitals to say otherwise.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is it not true that a hospital must balance its books, and that unexpected costs of the sort outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) in dealing with a disciplinary case could severely disrupt the process of balancing books and, therefore, distort the situation that she has outlined?

Mr. Sackville: That would be true of any enterprise in the public sector. There must be budgets for every part of the NHS. If unexpected costs fall on a certain hospital, those who are in charge of its finances must make provision through arrangements with health authorities or by meeting the costs within existing budgets. I am questioning the use of the word "profit" because of the impression it gives about the way in which a hospital is run and the motivation of those who run it. NHS hospitals are run for patients, not for profits. That may mean finding additional resources to treat more patients, but it does not mean that hospitals have a profit motive, which implies some sort of personal gain.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: How many trust hospitals set aside money for contingencies such as complaints and


disciplinary procedures? For example, how many hospitals would set aside a sum as large as £200,000 to investigate a serious complaint?

Mr. Sackville: I cannot answer those questions specifically, but hospitals must be aware that unexpected costs can arise, often as a result of a particular patient's expensive treatment. That possibility must be taken into account in setting a hospital's financial arrangements.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: When the business plans for this hospital and others go to the Department of Health, does the Department scrutinise the budgets to ensure that they are properly planned and can meet all eventualities, including the possibility of disciplinary action? If not, why does not the Department do so, given that it is not prepared to pick up the bill for such action?

Mr. Sackville: If the Department of Health was to sit in the centre trying to second-guess all the budgetary arrangements that have been made, we would need a large number of civil servants. We have regional outposts where our officials inspect all the trusts' annual budgets. That process is part of our monitoring of hospitals so that we know in good time whether a hospital is running into financial difficulties. If we do not know that in advance, patients will suffer.
The obstetrics and neo-natal paediatrics departments were two of the first to be opened at the Hinchingbrooke hospital. As it was a new hospital, there was scope for innovation and organisation of its staffing structure. The most significant of those innovations was to provide medical care on a two-tier rather than a three-tier system. For maternity, that means that care is given by trained doctors rather than doctors in training and the role of midwives is enhanced. So long as a woman's labour is normal and requires minor or common intervention, care is generally given by midwives. Enhancing the role of midwives is one of the fundamental aims of the "Changing Childbirth" paper, which I shall mention more fully in a moment.
Over the past 10 years, the maternity unit at Hinchingbrooke has become justifiably popular with expectant parents. The hospital was originally set up to cater for the needs of people living within the Huntingdon health district, which produces about 1,800 births a year. The current rate at Hinchingbrooke is some 2,700, which shows that many women go there from other districts, partly because of the maternity unit's reputation.
Hinchingbrooke is justifiably proud of its neo-natal services. I noted the hon. Lady's attempt to dispose in advance of any good results achieved by the maternity unit. May I point out that the overall survival rate is among the best in the country. All consultants in obstetrics and neo-natal paediatrics are highly trained in neo-natal intensive care and provide a first-class and much appreciated local service.
The hon. Lady initiated the debate obviously as a result of wishing to mention the on-going complaint concerning Mrs. McCall, who was receiving maternity care at the hospital, which resulted in the tragic events of 1992. I take the opportunity to convey my sympathy to Mrs. McCall and her family. I can only guess how she suffered then, and no doubt is suffering from the immense sadness of her loss.
Hinchingbrooke is, as the hon. Lady said, in the process of conducting an inquiry into that matter. There has been a delay in completing that task, which was partly the result of the police investigation, to which the hon. Lady referred, into a separate and unrelated incident as regards which I understand that the consultant in question has been cleared.
The allegation is that the delivery of the child in November 1992 was clinically mismanaged in the way that the hon. Lady described. That has been the subject of an independent review. The conclusions of that review, as she said, were that the consultant's management of the care was along accepted lines of treatment, but at variance with the care plan that had been agreed with the consultant originally in charge of the case, who was on holiday at the time. The assessors said that it would have been wiser to have followed that plan, and that the handling of the situation at the time of the tragic incident could have been better.
I understand that Mrs. McCall has further anxieties and questions arising from that review, and those are currently being investigated in disciplinary proceedings under annexe E. I would, however, point out that the review is following the guidelines set out by the circular, and will be conducted by independent professional assessors. I can assure the hon. Lady that Hinchingbrooke has already introduced revised protocols and guidance to staff dealing—

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that an annexe E procedure is an internal disciplinary procedure, which is normally used for less serious complaints, and that the annexe B procedure is used for more serious complaints? Does he feel that the specific case that I have outlined would be less serious?

Mr. Sackville: I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that that inquiry is on-going, and I cannot make any comments about the decisions taken by the hospital in that case. I can only tell the hon. Lady that it will be examined by independent assessors, and that I have no doubt that a very fair assessment will be made of the case.
Hinchingbrooke has already introduced revised protocols and guidance to staff dealing with maternity cases to ensure that agreed care plans are followed, irrespective of the consultant in charge at the birth.

Mrs. Campbell: I challenge the Minister on his use of the words "independent assessors", because I understand that an annexe E procedure is an internal disciplinary procedure, and would be carried out by the trust hospital itself. It would not be subject to independent assessment in the same way that annexe B would be.

Mr. Sackville: The review followed the guidelines set out, conducted by independent professional assessors. The hospital will respond to any lessons that are learned from that unfortunate incident.
Much is made of the large number of complaints in the NHS, and many people suggest that that is something that we would want to hide—the contrary is true. Let me put the general matter of complaints into perspective. Last year 55,000 complaints were received out of a total of 45 million in-patient and out-patient treatments. That represents about 0.1 per cent. of patients expressing some degree of dissatisfaction. That is clearly an impressively high level of general satisfaction with NHS services.
We are, of course, striving to do better and we have two key goals in mind: to improve the handling of complaints and reports from the health service ombudsman that are sent to all NHS providers in order to give clear lessons, and to ensure that the NHS complaints procedures are as simple and speedy as possible, and fair to patients and staff. To that end, the Government are currently consulting the independent review committee on complaints under Professor Wilson.
There is clear evidence that there is dissatisfaction with the complaints procedures in the NHS—we would be the first to admit that. Although the present system has the support of parts of the profession, there have been criticisms of the clinical complaints procedure—on the lack of a lay element and the delays in arrangements. 'Those concerns were expressed to the review committee under Professor Wilson. Its recently published report recommends that clinical complaints should be able to be considered by panels with a lay majority, that there should be an overall deadline of three months for all stages of NHS procedures to be completed, that the health service ombudsman should have the substance of clinical complaints—

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I want to take up the point that the complaints procedures should be heard within three months. Is the Minister aware that my constituent has now been waiting 20 months for a response to her complaint?

Mr. Sackville: That is entirely unsatisfactory. We need to have a system in the NHS that not only deals with complaints promptly, but does so in a way that gives the maximum confidence to all those involved that the complaint is being properly handled.
As I was saying, the third aspect of the Wilson report is that the health service ombudsman should have the substance of clinical complaints brought within his jurisdiction. Currently he may consider only possible maladministration of the procedure. My ministerial colleagues have said that a decision will be forthcoming later in the year on what changes should be made to the current clinical complaints procedure. The consultation period on the Wilson report will end on 15 August.
I certainly hear what the hon. Lady says when she quotes Mrs. McCall on the subject of making and trying to take forward the complaint, which has been extremely distressing for her—I understood her to say that the process was as distressing even as the incidents that lay behind it. I am aware that a great many improvements need to be made to the complaints system in the NHS and I am confident that the outcome of the—

Mrs. Wise: As a member of the Select Committee on Health, I visited the Hinchingbrooke hospital in 1991. I am

disquietened and disturbed by the account that we have had today. The Hinchingbrooke was an important hospital that was looked on with great favour by the Select Committee. It seems that the position of the staff and the mothers dependent on the Hinchingbrooke has been altered in a detrimental way.
I have listened carefully to the Minister, but the point which he has not answered and which must be of great concern to all of us who want good care, especially good maternity care, is what the Government will do about the financial aspects of these matters. We think that the financial aspects have, over the course of time, become dominant, but the Minister has not dealt with them. It is not simply a matter of improving the complaints procedure; the funding should not be a matter for individual hospital trusts. What do the Government have in mind on that point?

Mr. Sackville: We have to ensure that a system is established that does not involve a conflict between the financial needs of the hospital and the need adequately to investigate complaints. Professor Wilson has made a number of suggestions on that—for example, the use of lay assessors. If the hon. Lady is saying that the entire complaints procedure should become some form of national commission and should be centrally funded, that would be a major step, and not something to which I could commit the Government.

Ms Primarolo: Does the Minister agree that the case as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) shows that patients' wishes and the openness of the national health service are not being honoured? Justice has not been done, and has not been seen to be done. The stumbling block appears to be the conflict between commerciality and the lack of funds.
Will the Minister take on board the specific problem of lack of funds for a disciplinary procedure in hospitals? Will he ensure that such a case never happens again in any other hospital? Will he further ensure that the case raised is dealt with correctly and that the proper procedures are undertaken?

Mr. Sackville: I do not accept that a case has been proved that the complaint was handled unsatisfactorily because of a lack of funds. I have already conceded that we must establish a procedure that does not involve a conflict of interests that will inhibit the investigation of complaints.
I end by reiterating my sympathy for Mrs. McCall and her family. I am sorry that I cannot say more in detail about the case because there is a continuing investigation. I share the concern which has been expressed about the case.

Orders of the Day — Cyprus

Mr. John Marshall: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is temporarily out of the Chamber, on his return to the Foreign Office—and, indeed, his return to the Chamber. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker, the Minister for Overseas Development, so he will obviously approach his new portfolio with great interest and experience.
This is a sad day in the history of Cyprus. It is the 20th anniversary of the Turkish invasion in 1974 when, at the dead of night, thousands of Turkish troops parachuted from the skies. That resulted in the partitioning of the island and in hundreds of thousands of Cypriots becoming refugees. Many people lost homes that had been in their families for generations.
I well remember that on one of my earlier visits to Cyprus I met a Cypriot who worked for the Cypriot Government. He said, "We took slightly longer before we fled because my father thought he should take the title deeds to our home as well." Then he added, "And much good it did him and us," because ever since then they have not been able to return to their home.
Last autumn I went to Cyprus with my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess). One of the most traumatic occasions that we experienced was when we went with the mayor in exile of Famagusta to see from the border the home in which he had lived and from which he was now barred. It must be frightful for tens of thousands of people to go to that border, to see the homes where they once lived, and which are still their legal property, but to know that they are inhabited by Turkish settlers or soldiers and certainly by people who pay no rent for the homes that were once theirs and in the care of which they have no say. Many tens of thousands of people who fled from Famagusta and Kyrenia are in that dreadful position. There can be few greater denials of human rights than for an individual to be prevented from living in the home that his father, grandfather and great grandfather have also been pleased to call home.
It is not just a question of refugees. As a result of the events of 20 years ago, more than 1,500 people are missing whose fate is unknown. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and I—accompanied by, among others, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) —were in Trafalgar square on Sunday. It is probably the last time that I shall appear on the same platform as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, certainly in Trafalgar square.
Among those in the audience were a number of ladies who were dressed all in black because they did not know what had happened to their missing relatives. They could be wives uncertain of the fate of their husbands, mothers not knowing what had happened to their sons and daughters, or men and women who did not know what had happened to their parents. It is a scandal that 20 years later thousands of individuals still do not know what has happened to their dear ones. There are 200,000 refugees, thousands of people do not know what has happened to those whom they hold dearest, and 38 per cent. of the island is inhabited by Turkish Cypriots—although they comprise only 18 per cent. of the population.
To justify the situation in number terms, about 25,000 Turkish settlers have been introduced into Cyprus—not Cypriots, but Turks—and to demonstrate the Government's popularity there are 30,000 Turkish troops. What an advertisement that is of the popularity of Mr. Denktash that he can keep control only by having 30,000 troops from a foreign country in Cyprus. That shows that the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus has no popular support. It is surely wrong that Cyprus should have been repopulated by 25,000 Turkish settlers who are inhabiting homes which are not theirs and which are probably owned by Greek Cypriots who may be able to see their houses but who cannot live in them.
The events of 20 years ago are also a black period in Britain's history. It is one of the ironies of the 1970s and the 1980s that in 1981 my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher was able to send a task force to the Falklands to recover those islands from the Argentinian invader while in 1974 the noble Lord Wilson had British troops on British sovereign bases in Cyprus but did nothing to stop Turkish troops landing. He did nothing to use our position as a guarantor power to stop Turkish troops invading Cyprus. That history of neglect is a crying indictment of British politics in 1974.
The real tragedy of the past 20 years is that there is now a real danger that partition will become institutionalised. The blue line in Nicosia is as effective a barrier to movement between the two parts of Cyprus as the Berlin wall was in preventing movement between the two parts of Germany. Before 1974, Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived in the same villages, used the same shops, worked for the same employers and attended the same schools. They may have had differences of religion, but first and foremost they were Cypriots.
Since 1974, Greek and Turkish Cypriots have not spoken to one another, attended the same schools or used the same shops. A whole generation has grown up in which Turk is divided from Greek, Greek from Turk. There is always a risk that the partition which has endured 20 years may eventually be accepted as inevitable by some commentators on the Cypriot issue. One reason for this debate is to emphasise to the people of Cyprus that partition is as unacceptable today, 20 years on, as it was in 1974.
Since an Adjournment debate on the issue in May, on 6 July the European Court banned European Union states importing goods from northern Cyprus unless they were certified by the legal Government of Cyprus. That decision strengthens the possibility of an economic stranglehold on northern Cyprus. There are already huge disparities in the incomes of those who live in northern Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. That will obviously worsen. The northern Cyprus economy survives only because of subventions from Turkey, which itself is scarcely a wealthy economy, and the burden of making greater subventions to northern Cyprus may act as an incentive for Turkey to go to the negotiating table.
Apart from its economic impact, the ban emphasises the unacceptability of partition to national opinion. Peace in the middle east was achieved by a series of building blocks, and so it will be in Cyprus. The United Nations Secretary-General was right to introduce a series of confidence-building measures, based on the Turkish Cypriots allowing the Greek Cypriots back into Varosha and on the re-opening of Nicosia airport. Since 1974, Varosha—once the mecca of the Cypriot tourist trade—has


been closed to all but rats and other vermin. No tourist, hotelier or anybody else has been in Varosha for 20 years. Reopening Varosha would have been a practical start to rebuilding confidence between the two communities. It would have boosted the economies of Cyprus, led to job opportunities for Turkish Cypriots and thus helped both communities. Reopening Nicosia airport would have given a great boost to the Turkish Cypriots, because it would have made imports easier and exports more feasible and given the tourist industry a boost.
The fact that the confidence-building measures, which would reduce disparities in incomes between the Greek Cypriots and others, have not been supported by the Turkish Cypriots must be due simply to sheer stubborn stupidity. President Clerides has agreed to those measures, but Mr. Denktash has been less than consistent and one must wonder whether he ever wants reach a negotiated agreement.
The second issue that one must raise is the Corfu summit, because it was agreed there that the applications of Malta and Cyprus should be the next to be considered by the European Commission. I believe that it would be wrong to link Cyprus's application to a satisfactory solution to its political situation, because in effect if we say to the legitimate Government of Cyprus, "We will consider your application only if there has been an agreement between the two communities in Cyprus," we are giving Mr. Denktash a right of veto over the application of the Greek Cypriots to join the European Community.
There is only one legitimate Government in Cyprus, and it is essential that the European Community should listen to them and to no one else. Cyprus has wanted to get closer to the European Union for many years and I believe that there should be no further delay in considering its application. It was agreed at Corfu that the European Union would consider that application in January next year. I know that Commissioner Brittan is anxious that it should be considered favourably, and I very much hope that it can be.
We should also make it clear to Turkey that its application to join the European Union will be accepted only when a fundamental precondition has been reached —that is, a solution to the Cypriot situation—because for Turkey to be able to colonise a country that is seeking to join the European Union and then say, "We want to join as well," is quite wrong.
The events of 20 July 1974 were unacceptable then and their legacy is even more unacceptable today. A whole generation of Cypriots have suffered because of the world's indifference to their situation in 1974. The world must not be blind to the continued difficulties of Cyprus and to the unacceptable consequences of the continued division of that beautiful island.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing the Adjournment debate on this very important topic. He rightly referred to the rally in Trafalgar square, and if I may say so it was a pleasure to see him there accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It was a sight for sore eyes. I am sure that many photographs were taken of the occasion, which could be shown to other hon. Members.
But on a more serious point, as the hon. Gentleman said, the rally, which I have attended on numerous other occasions, was perhaps one of the largest that there has been on the issue. It was attended by a number of people from the Cypriot community in Britain, and in the front, as the hon. Gentleman said, were a number of women who had come specially. They were dressed in black to symbolise the missing people.
There are many examples—with grave consequences internationally—of people who die in the tragic circumstances of war and civil war. But not to know—and still not know 20 years later—the whereabouts of one's husband, father, uncle or son is something too awful to contemplate.
A constituent of mine was at the rally on Sunday. She held up a photograph of her loved one. Many other people held up photographs of their loved ones. All that that woman has left of her loved one is a video tape of the "Nine O'Clock News", in which it is announced that nine police officers in her village have been detained by the Turkish invasion forces. That snippet is all that she has of him; nothing has been heard of him for 20 years. He was a young man in the prime of life, a serving police officer. His sister and elderly mother have no news of him whatever.
There is a problem with the reporting of events connected with Cyprus. I saw very little media coverage of that tremendous rally on Sunday, although I was delighted to read a wonderful editorial on the subject in today's Evening Standard, which dealt with the continuing international problem with great authority, passion and clarity.
On Sunday, we met in the shadow of South Africa house. Under Mr. Mandela's presidency, that country is now in a position that very few hon. Members on either side of the House expected to see in their lifetimes. South Africa is now being admitted back into the international community. Recently, President Clinton and the German Chancellor crossed, through the Brandenburg gate, into a free and united federal Germany. But Cyprus—a member of the Commonwealth and the United Nations—is still cruelly divided.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have visited Cyprus. They will have gone from bustling Nicosia, a wonderful, thriving commercial city, to look at the green line: they will have viewed the divided part of the city, where nothing has moved or breathed for 20 years. It is possible to see the evidence of abandoned car lots and discarded glasses. It comes as quite a shock. I was a student at the time of the invasion; I remember reading about it, but visiting Cyprus and witnessing the desolation is another thing entirely. It really brings home the suffering that is going on.
So many people in Cyprus are refugees in their own land. The Cypriot Government have absorbed their refugees into the community; there are no refugee camps. The Government of Cyprus must be warmly congratulated on what they have done during those years. People forget, however, that many Cypriots are unable to return to their family homes or to visit the graves of their parents and grandparents. Theirs is perhaps the cruellest fate of all: they are refugees in their own country.
One of our difficulties in Britain is that, in many senses, we have lost the connection with land and soil, living as we do in a very industrial society. Although Cyprus, too, is a very modern industrial society, it retains that connection


with the land that was owned by parents and grandparents —small pieces of land, perhaps, but they hold important memories.
Like the hon. Member for Hendon, South, I feel that President Clerides has done all that he can in the current negotiations. I find it striking that the Secretary-General of the United Nations clearly reached the view that Mr. Denktash and the illegal regime in the north of Cyprus were ensuring that the talks stalled and nothing happened.
Britain has a part to play in this. We are and we continue to be a guarantor power. I warmly welcome the Minister to his new post, but I must tell him that it is not good enough for Britain just to say that we support the best efforts of the United Nations. Britain has a part to play in solving this matter, as do the European Community and the United States.
I have asked several parliamentary questions on this issue. I asked about the visits of Foreign Office Ministers. From the answers, I understand that since 1979 Ministers have visited Cyprus only three times to discuss solutions to all the problems on the island. In the short time that he has been in his new post I do not suppose that the Minister has had time to make detailed travel arrangements, but I hope that he will visit Cyprus in the near future so that these matters can be discussed. In one case there was a gap of 10 years between visits. That is not good enough for a guarantor power.
The crucial issue involves the application of Cyprus to join the European Union. Rightly, mention was made of the Corfu summit. However, it is something to talk about it and sign a document there and then to hear Ministers say when they come back that Cyprus's application to join the European Union is dependent upon the problems of the island being solved. That is not good enough. In effect, that is the illegal regime in the north holding the legitimate, democratic Republic of Cyprus hostage. In every way Cyprus fulfils all the criteria to become a member of the Union.
If Cyprus became a member of the European Union, there is no way in which the Union would allow the island to be divided. It is vital that Britain does everything it can to encourage its membership and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
There is also the problem of the fires in Famagusta about which I have written to the Foreign Secretary. They swept through the city. We need to know how they came about and what will be the solution. There are many Cypriots in Britain as well as in Cyprus who are anxious about that. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
The people of Cyprus have waited a long time for justice and for a solution. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hendon, South initiated the debate. After 20 years it would be wonderful if Britain could begin to play its part in bringing about a just solution.

Mr. Tom Cox: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for initiating the debate and for the long and honourable stance that he has adopted on Cyprus. Hon.

Members can say that the issue of Cyprus has been kept alive by the actions of honourable Members from both sides of the House.
Like other colleagues I welcome the presence of the new Foreign Office Minister. No doubt he has an idea about the Cyprus issue, but I must tell him in the friendliest way possible that hon. Members from both sides of the House will take every opportunity to raise the issue of Cyprus. To the credit of hon. Members, that has been our record over 20 years and it is the attitude that we shall continue to adopt until there is an honourable settlement.
Both the previous speakers highlighted some of the tragic issues and, sadly, we must continue to remind people about them. Over the years I and other colleagues have had many meetings with senior Ministers. I and a number of colleagues had many meetings with Sir Geoffrey Howe when he was the Foreign Secretary. To his credit, he always said that, for the life of him, he could not understand why Turkey did not substantially reduce the number of its troops in northern Cyprus. Sadly, that did not happen.
I am a member of the Council of Europe. About three weeks ago, its political committee met in Strasbourg. The rapporteur was Lord Finsberg, who had invited both sides —the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots—to Strasbourg to discuss how they envisaged a settlement being reached. The committee will of course publish a report in due course, and I am sure that the Minister will find it very depressing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, President Derides made very clear his position and that of the Government of Cyprus on the confidence-building measures.
As was stated at the meeting in Strasbourg, Mr. Denktash is—as we say—moving the goalposts all the time. The Secretary-General, fully aware of the problems, outlined clearly what he wished to be discussed. However, it was Mr. Denktash who repeatedly moved the goalposts and made meaningful discussions virtually impossible.
In a debate that I secured in, I think, December last year, a Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), outlined what the Government would be doing in the following three or four months, which took us into the beginning of the year. I know that Minister's name, but I regret that I do not know his constituency. He said clearly that the Government regarded the confidence-building measures with great hope, but it is Mr. Denktash, helped by the support that he gets from Ankara, who has delayed any meaningful progress on those measures.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green mentioned the rally in Trafalgar square on Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) thrilled the enormous crowd by delivering his speech in Greek. I also spoke at the rally. It became clear that, after 20 years, the Greek Cypriots desperately want an honourable settlement.
The first problem to confront the Minister when he sits down with the Foreign Secretary and other colleagues is to decide exactly what to do after 20 years. Despite repeated efforts at inter-community talks and despite the confidence-building measures set out by the Secretary-General, we have got nowhere. Now is the time for the Government to state what action is to be taken.
I liken Mr. Denktash to a blackmailer: he realises that, as long as his demands are being met with nothing being done to him, he will continue to make those demands.


Regrettably, that is exactly what Mr. Denktash is doing. It is always Mr. Denktash who demands concessions. I suggest to President Clerides that the time has come for him, as leader of the Greek Cypriots, to make it clear that the concessions are at an end. Mr. Denktash and Ankara must agree that a settlement is needed.
However, in speeches and comments made in the past two or three months, senior Turkish officials have said clearly that they have no intention of withdrawing their troops from northern Cyprus or entering into a meaningful dialogue about a settlement. Mr. Ecevit, the leader of the Democratic party in Turkey, is on record as having said only a few weeks ago that the situation in Cyprus was solved in July 1974; he believes that there is no problem in Cyprus.
I shall not detain the House for very long as I am sure that other hon. Members, let alone members of the two Front Benches, wish to speak. I am the first to admit that the hon. Member for Hendon, South and many of his colleagues have an excellent record of fighting for the rights of Cyprus. I have said many times that I am not interested solely in the Greek Cypriots; I am interested in the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish, and in the island of Cyprus.
A great injustice was done 20 years ago. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been to Cyprus. Perhaps he has, in another capacity. I hope he takes up the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that Ministers got into the regular habit of visiting Cyprus. If the Minister went there he would see its enormous potential. The south is extremely wealthy. Sadly, the north is not. However, Cyprus is extremely popular with holidaymakers, and has a superb agricultural system that is extremely profitable to it. If only the island could be united, it would soon have one of the most prosperous economies in the world. Yet that still does not happen.
How would the Minister answer someone who said to him, "Look at my hands. Those are the hands of someone who has worked on the land all his life. That was my job, and it is what I love to do—but my lands were taken away from me and I have never had the opportunity to go back to my lands and my property"? The people of Cyprus cannot be expected to continue put up with and to live with that injustice, as they have for the past 20 years.
Those people are entitled to expect certain basic rights. The first is freedom of movement anywhere in the island of Cyprus. We should make the comparison with this country. What happens in Cyprus is as if people in this country were told, "You cannot go to Scotland or Wales; you can travel only in England." I am sure that all hon. Members would say that in any settlement both Greek and Turkish Cypriots must have the right to go anywhere in the island that they want to.
Equally, we can neither allow the situation to continue in which people have had their lands and properties stolen from them, nor allow a settlement in which those lands and properties are not returned.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South told us, forcefully and rightly, what we need to look for as evidence of good will. I have already described to the Minister the reluctance of Mr. Denktash and his friends in Ankara to accept any reduction in the number of troops in the north. As for good will, if Famagusta-Varosha were reopened, that would

provide evidence of meaningful good will on the part of Mr. Denktash. Yet when he has been approached, what has happened?
When the Minister has been in his new post a little longer he will be able to sit down with his officials and look at the map of Famagusta as it was before 1974, and that of the Famagusta that Mr. Denktash now says he is prepared to hand back to the Greek Cypriots. He will see that that deal is just not on. It would not be on in this country, either, if any of us—the Minister, myself or any other hon. Member—were confronted by someone saying, "Oh, yes. Once that was yours, but now I've got it. It doesn't matter how I got it. As evidence of good will, I am prepared to give you one little bit back—but I shall keep the bulk of it." That is what Mr. Denktash says repeatedly about Famagusta. Yet if he was prepared to agree to the opening up of Famagusta, it would be evidence of good will on his part.
Although there are problems, they could be resolved, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations has clearly said in the past few weeks. I am sure that the Minister, although he has just come into this post, is aware that the inquiry that the Secretary-General was asked to hold about Cyprus went on for many months. It is only within recent weeks that, regrettably, the Secretary-General has said that he has got nowhere. The special emissaries whom he sent to Cyprus, including Mr. Joe Clarke, the former Prime Minister of Canada, have all said that they want a settlement. The tragedy is that, on the Turkish Cypriot side, Mr. Denktash does not want a settlement.
As I and many hon. Members have said before, we desperately want a settlement. I serve on the defence committee of Western European Union and I attend defence meetings. The Mediterranean comes more and more into our discussions, as do the possible threat and concern caused by countries in the Mediterranean. The lack of any settlement in Cyprus comes more and more into the discussions. That should be of concern to us.
I hope that the Minister takes up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. When, in the next few months, he goes to Cyprus for a few days and meets people—not only politicians, but ordinary people—he should do as my hon. Friend said. He should walk along the green line and think that this is happening in a Commonwealth country.
We all know what used to happen in Berlin. Visiting politicians always walked along the wall and had their photograph taken there. They used to say, "What a disgrace to democracy that in this day and age, there is a wall that divides a city." In Cyprus, there is a wall that divides a country. People in the north cannot go to the south and people in the south cannot go to the north. We are one of the guarantor powers. Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth and the heads of the Commonwealth conference met there last September. Within a Commonwealth country is a wall that divides the country in half.
The Minister will find many friends in the House who will do all that we can to work with him and with his colleagues. What we say to the Minister in turn is that, in the next few weeks, he, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must tell hon. Members of both sides what the Government propose to do. They must say to Mr. Denktash and his friends and supporters in Ankara, "You cannot continue, year by year by year, to flout any authority that comes here


to try to develop and to get accepted a settlement that would be as honourable for the Turkish Cypriots as it would be for the Greek Cypriots."
I wish the Minister well in his new position. Many hon. Members held him in high regard in his previous post. He may have taken on an even more difficult post now. However, as I said in my opening remarks, he can be in no doubt that at every opportunity the issue of Cyprus will be raised in the Chamber by hon. Members on both sides who are interested in the subject.

Sir Peter Fry: I rise to put, dare I say it, a little more balance into the debate. I have listened to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Just as two languages are talked on the island of Cyprus, it is almost as if two languages are talked in the House of Commons when we consider the issue.
The hon. Member for Tooting made much play of what had happened in the south of Cyprus, and he talked about the events of 20 years ago as if they were the start of the present problem. He knows, and I know, that the difficulties between the two communities go back further than 20 years. He is a regular visitor to Cyprus, so he will have seen the Turkish villages where Turkish Cypriots were murdered by Greek Cypriots. I accept that atrocities may have taken place on both sides.
What was missing from the hon. Gentleman's speech —and what I presume has been missing from the debate as a whole—is some sort of balance between the two communities. Let us take one simple fact: the Turks are a minority, and minorities tend to feel exceedingly nervous when there is a wealthier majority in the same country.
My second point is that, when we talk about a settlement, I must ask the hon. Gentleman and all those who are keen on the Greek Cypriot cause: who has benefited? Who has done well out of the green line and the division of the island? We all know what has happened. We know that the south has developed enormously and is much stronger than the north.
That has happened because the Cypriot Government are recognised by the international community and get the international aid. The problem is that the Turkish Cypriots have felt alone; they have felt that the only people interested in them are those in the Republic of Turkey. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House want any settlement forced on either side if it is against the will of the various people.
I make it clear that I do not have an axe to grind. Some of my colleagues may well have Greek Cypriot communities or Turkish Cypriot communities in their constituencies; I have neither. I came to the issue of Cyprus as someone who had no strong feelings in either direction. I became interested as a member, and now an officer, of the parliamentary friends of North Cyprus group because I felt that all the high cards were in the hands of the Greek Cypriots.
If we are to get a proper settlement, we must satisfy the fears of the Turkish Cypriots. We all know that, unless we can satisfy those fears, there is a great danger of the continuing presence of a large number of Turkish troops in the north of the island. Those who are putting forward the case for the Greek Cypriots must understand that fear.
The Turkish troops are seen as the only defenders of the freedom of Turkish Cypriots. We know perfectly well that there are more Greek Cypriots than Turkish Cypriots. We know well that some Greek Cypriots are much wealthier than Turkish Cypriots, with mineral resources. We also know the way in which the Greek Cypriots have built up their forces over the years.
The trouble is that, as this thing has gone on for so long, so much mutual mistrust is buried in the animosities of the past that it becomes difficult to bring about a solution today.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: What sort of role does the hon. Gentleman think the United Nations should play in this problem? I visited Cyprus some time ago. It appeared that the international community had abandoned its responsibility for what was going on there. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is a role for the United Nations, at least to intervene on the question of Cyprus to find a solution?

Sir Peter Fry: Yes, I do. One of the great problems is that there have been various UN resolutions. At one time, it seemed that one side or both sides would agree with the resolutions, and they then backed away. That is why we have this continuing problem.
Another reason is that, despite the occasional problems along the green line, it is not like Bosnia; it is not like a country where a war is taking place. Cyprus is a remarkably peaceful country, and people are able to take their holidays in either Greek Cyprus or North Cyprus without fear that they will be shot at or endangered.
In a way, that is part of the problem. As it is something that it is not hitting the headlines, and as it is not seen as an urgent priority compared with some of the difficulties that we see all around the world, perhaps there has not been the urgency for the United Nations to try to get a settlement. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).

Sir Jim Spicer: Other hon. Members have spoken about the role of the guarantor powers. If my hon. Friend casts his mind back to July 1974, he will recall that Mr. Ecevit, representing the Turkish Government, came here and begged the then Government of the United Kingdom to intervene—as we had a right and a duty to do —on behalf of all the Cypriot people.
The then British Government refused because they were craven and cowards. They did not intervene when they should have done. Had they done so, the island would not now be divided, because British troops would have been in Nicosia within 24 hours. There would have been a token Turkish landing, and President Makarios would have been reinstated. I will never, ever forgive—nor, I hope, will my hon. Friend forgive—the then British Government for their behaviour in 1974.

Sir Peter Fry: I endorse my hon. Friend's wise words. It would be a tragedy, however, if we spent all our time looking back and did not make an attempt to see how we can bring about an eventual solution.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have an obligation to look back, because unless we take history into account we cannot look forward? Does he agree that the problem at that time was that the people of the Turkish community were driven into enclaves, were deprived of their jobs and their civil rights?


Does he agree that they gave a cry for help, to which the British Government of day failed to respond? That is why Turkey came to the rescue.

Sir Peter Fry: My hon. Friend is right. One must recall that this country was the guarantor of the Cyprus constitution. When that constitution appeared to be torn up by one side, it was inevitable that the Turkish Cypriots looked for help. I am afraid that, in their time of need, the Government of this country did not come to their assistance.
If we concentrate on who did what 25 years ago, we will not, however, get any closer to a settlement. If anyone doubts that, I refer him to the problems of Northern Ireland, where we are too obsessed with the past to alter the problems of today.
I refute the description of President Denktash offered by the Opposition. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on a number of occasions. With respect, I must contradict the hon. Member for Tooting, because I believe that Mr. Denktash wants a settlement. He knows that, in the long run, he cannot always rely on the Turkish Government to spend large amounts of money on Turkish north Cyprus. He knows that, in the long run, a population that is much smaller than its Greek neighbours must be offered certain built-in guarantees if long-term security is to established.
He also knows, however, that it is quite ridiculous to say to him and to his country, "You must rebuild Famagusta." The resources, frankly, are not there to do that. People now living in north Cyprus have lost property in south Cyprus, just as people living in southern Cyprus have lost property in north Cyprus. It is not a one-way process.
If hon. Members intend to ask the Minister, whom I congratulate on his appointment, to take a one-sided view, I must tell him and the House that certain hon. Members would not accept that. This is not a party political matter; we are trying to resolve a difficult situation in part of the Commonwealth.
As usual, the recent negotiations and who said what have been shrouded in fog. As I understand it—I am willing to be corrected—two main issues were to be settled and taken as a measure of the trust between the two communities. First, the main airport was to be opened, so that both parts of the island could use it. That is essential for the development of tourism in north and south Cyprus. I accept that that would have brought great benefits to the Turkish Cypriots.
Secondly, Famagusta was to be handed back to Greek Cypriots. I should have thought that that was a fair offer between the two communities. I understand that Mr. Denktash was willing to do a deal. But when he asked the Greek Cypriot Government to put their ideas and acceptance of the proposal on paper, they declined to do so.
I do not want to go into all the whys and wherefores, but it seems that there must be some doubt about who wants a settlement. As the Greek Cypriots hold nearly all the cards, it suits them perfectly well to let the situation continue as it is for a very long time. Their economy is not suffering. Indeed, it is expanding. They are not under the duress that is being experienced in the north. They are not under the same pressure to come to some form of settlement.
When the Government accept that they are a guarantor of the original constitution of Cyprus, I hope that we shall proceed in a more even-handed manner.

Mr. John Marshall: I suggest to my hon. Friend that he reads the report of the Security Council, in which it is made clear that the feeling of those who have been to Cyprus is that it is much more the fault of Mr. Denktash than of President Clerides that there has been no settlement.

Sir Peter Fry: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view, as is anyone who has been to Cyprus from the United Nations. I visited both parts of the island, and it is my feeling that there has been insufficient consideration of the real threats and fears to which the Turkish minority is subjected.
My hon. Friend talks about what the United Nations should or should not do. Is he suggesting—I ask a simple question—that the United Nations should enforce a settlement regardless of the wishes of the Turkish Cypriots? If he says yes, that is a point of view. I should make it clear that it is one with which I violently disagree.
If my hon. Friend says no, and he feels that there must be a settlement between the two communities, we shall get nowhere by bashing one of them over the head and trying to prove that it is entirely wrong. That will only reinforce its fear that it has no friends, and its desire that the Turkish troops should remain. That will mean only that an eventual settlement will be even further away.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman might think, on reflection, that he has done a disservice to the 200,000 Greek Cypriots who have been displaced and are refugees. Surely he accepts that those who were in the southern part of Cyprus wish to return to their homes. To suggest that the people in southern Cyprus, or the southern part of the Republic of Cyprus, do not want a settlement, does them a grave injustice.

Sir Peter Fry: A great many Turkish Cypriots were taken from their land in the south of Cyprus. It is an argument that applies both ways, and I am sympathetic to both groups.
The debate has, unfortunately, been one sided so far. Only one point of view has been expressed. I think that there is another point of view. It would be fatal if the Government or the United Nations continue to take what the Turkish Cypriots believe to be the Greek view. If that attitude continues, the problem will not be solved.
There should be a more even-handed approach. We probably need to persuade Mr. Denktash and his Government to arrive at a settlement. We shall not succeed by bludgeoning them—

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Fry: No. I am sorry, but I am about to bring my remarks to an end.
We shall not succeed if they think that we are not being even handed and that we are biased against them. I think that my intervention has introduced a degree of balance and has focused on the true split of the island—two things which had been missing from the debate.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I regret that there is not enough time to develop many pertinent arguments. My intervention will be brief, but I must take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry). He said that we must not look back, but all the rhetoric of those who support the cause of the Turkish Cypriots is based on looking back far beyond


1974. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) recognised that, and the hon. Member for Wellingborough should acknowledge the fact.
Great store is made of the Turkish army's right to invade Cyprus in 1974, citing the 1960 treaty of guarantee. It had no such right. The treaty of guarantee afforded it the power to intervene to preserve and restore the constitutional order in Cyprus, which was rescued from an aborted coup d'etat soon after the invasion in 1974. But the Turkish army stayed on and, in so doing, was in breach of the treaty of guarantee.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough should recognise that. He is talking the language of "Alice in Wonderland" when he says that the Turkish army was protecting Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus. He knows that there has been mass emigration of Turkish Cypriots from northern Cyprus and a mass import of immigrants from Anatolia into northern Cyprus—a classic case of ethnic cleansing and ethnic engineering.
Given the lack of time, I have time only to say that, behind all the rhetoric, the reality is that 20 years of prevarication and pretence of negotiation have been but a cloak for the real purpose of the northern Cyprus Administration, which is internally to gerrymander their electorate so that they have a built-in support from imported votes for their purpose of partition. Externally, they can now tell the outside world with some credibility that the two communities could not live together, because they have unlearnt the habit of living together by force of arms over 20 years.
Thucydides drew a distinction between pretext and causation in power politics, a classic example of which can be seen in the behaviour of the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey since 1974 in Cyprus.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough made great play about the depression of the economy in northern Cyprus. The 200,000 Greeks who were driven out were the economic engine of northern Cyprus, and the Anatolian peasants who have been imported ever since are no economic engine to restore the area's economy. Although only 37 per cent. of the island is occupied, it is potentially by far the most productive part of the island. The Turks took the whole of the tourist industry in 1974—it had to be rebuilt in the south—and the most of the productive agricultural land.
Tacitus once said:
they make a desert and they call it peace".
Never could that axiom be more clearly applied than to the situation produced by the Turks and Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus today.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I just round up the debate, because I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry)?
I first went to north Cyprus some 10 years ago. I have no brief from either community, Greek or Turkish. Indeed, I have friends on both sides of the divide. This debate must be regarded in the context of balance and, while I congratulate the newly appointed Minister at the Foreign Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), I urge him earnestly to listen to both sides of the equation and visit both sides of the island of Cyprus.
When he visits the north side, he will hear a different story. He will immediately become aware of a community of peaceful people who threaten no one. Not a single life has been lost in conflict since 1974. All they want is that their children can grow up without fear and threats to their lives. The older generation remember keenly the deprivation and lack of civil rights that they went through.
While the Greek community rejoice in their prosperity, they rejoice also in their ability to lobby across the world, and do so extremely effectively. By the same token, it is important to bear in mind the fact that there are people in the north who are not so effective at lobbying, who cannot call up the world diaspora to their support, but who none the less have a strong case.
I urge the Minister to take account of their losses—of their loss of dignity, of the lack of support from Britain, and of how hurtful it has been that, although they regard themselves as a member of the British Commonwealth, they are not accorded the right of being an equal member of the British Commonwealth, in the same light as their colleagues and their friends in the south.

Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Lady treat of the subject of colonisation of northern Cyprus? There are no Cypriots in my constituency of Hemsworth, but I am considerably worried about the historical precedents that we have of colonisation of that type—indeed, it happened in ancient Greece. Would the hon. Lady like to justify what is happening there? Will she also perhaps reflect on what happened historically when that took place?

Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful for that intervention. One fact must be borne in mind. If the hon. Gentleman should visit north Cyprus, he will become well aware that the north Cypriot regards himself with great pride as a Cypriot, not a Turk, and he simply regarded the purpose of the arrival of the Turkish army as being to look after his own personal security and his interests.
North Cypriots long for the day when they can be free of the support from Ankara. Ankara came to their support because they were being deprived of their civil rights, and they had been ethnically cleansed. Surely now the day has come when their wishes must be taken into account. I feel strongly that the House tends to forget them.

Mr. O'Hara: Can the hon. Lady give me an example of the ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriots pre-1974?

Lady Olga Maitland: There are endless examples. If the hon. Member looks at any map of Cyprus, he will see that there are circles round places in which only the Turkish Cypriots may live, work and move. I have heard many personal accounts of Turks who have been totally deprived of freedom of movement across the island.

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend spoke about ethnic cleansing, and the fact that the Turkish Cypriots regard themselves as Cypriots, not Turkish Cypriots. Will she explain to the House how they feel when they see tens of thousands of Turkish colonists coming from Turkey and living in northern Cyprus? Is that not anathema to them, and to every other Cypriot?

Lady Olga Maitland: When my hon. Friend takes into account the fact that the people who enter from the country of Turkey are simply other citizens, and that, similarly,


many people will have arrived in southern Cyprus from all over the world, I think that, in a sense, that is begging the question.
We are discussing an issue of equality of human rights. The Turkish people of north Cyprus deserve the same amount of attention and concern as the Greek people in the south.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on asking for and obtaining this debate. As my hon. Friends and Conservative Members have said, it is significant that today is the twentieth anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey on 20 July 1974, when Turkish troops invaded and occupied just under 40 per cent. of the total land mass.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) rightly said, the occupied area was the most fertile, productive and economically wealthy part of the island, so I completely lost the thread of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), who seemed to blame the poverty of northern Cyprus on the industrious people of southern Cyprus who have worked hard to rebuild their economy in some of the most hostile territory of the island. It was a perverse argument to advance.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Knowsley, South have advanced many of the arguments and I do not want to repeat them. It is important that all the arguments are rehearsed in such a debate, and it was therefore refreshing to hear the view of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. Some reflective thought, however, might have given him the answers to some of his questions. He claimed that he had much higher motives in saying that he did not have a vested interest and came to the problem free from constituency pressures from Greeks on the one side or Turks on the other. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no Greek or Turkish Cypriots in my constituency in the Rhondda.
To the hon. Member for Wellingborough and some of his hon. Friends I would say that we do not have Asil Nadir in our constituencies either.

Lady Olga Maitland: That is a cheap comment.

Mr. Rogers: It is not cheap. If ever a person was supported by and received help from a political party, it was Asil Nadir in his business activities and the way he related to the nexus of politics and trading in the near east. Mine was not a cheap remark: I was saying that many Conservatives had strong connections with Asil Nadir, so they do not come to the problem in a clean state.

Lady Olga Maitland: How would the hon. Gentleman respond to the fact that Serbs from Belgrade and Bosnia used banks in Greek Cyprus to launder their arms-dealing money?

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Lady is perhaps an expert on the laundering of money in the middle east—if one can make Bosnia and Croatia a part of that—while I am not particularly expert. The hon. Lady has obviously made a great study of that area.
Mr. Asil Nadir was a fugitive from justice in this country and was entertained and was welcomed back in the

illegally occupied part of northern Cyprus. There is no way that the Turkish Government will transport him back to this country. He certainly had a great deal of influence on certain members of the—

Sir Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak, he can follow me in the debate.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough also said that northern Cyprus has no friends while the southern part, the Republic of Cyprus, has all the friends. That is fairly natural—if they are in the right and northern Cyprus and Turkey are in the wrong, naturally the world community will support those people who have suffered an injustice and whose land has been invaded by foreign armies.

Sir Peter Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, while the minority Turks feel that their future is threatened and they are not given a degree of security, they will never be very willing to make a long-term settlement? Is that not the element that has been missing from the hon. Gentleman's speech and those of his hon. Friends? There has to be some guarantee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, unless the Turks receive that guarantee, we may be debating the subject for many more years to come?

Mr. Rogers: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman —in fact, I was going to come to that point. He said that we needed to be even-handed in our approach to the problem. He is right to say that guarantees must be made to both communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said that his interest was in Cypriots—not Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. Any solution that is to be brought about by the mediation of the United Nations has to be fair to both communities. That was why President Clerides recently made the offer that if northern Cyprus was prepared to demilitarise its area and Turkey was prepared to withdraw the 30,000 troops, he would disband the national guard. The whole of the island of Cyprus could become demilitarised, with a return to normal policing so that people in each of the communities could feel secure in their homes and properties.
It has been 20 hard years of diplomatic effort towards achieving a settlement. It is my considered opinion—I do not come to the argument from either side—that it is the Turks who have been intransigent in the negotiations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said, Mr. Denktash seems to be continually moving the goalposts. A study of the detail of the negotiations under the United Nations representative, Mr. Clarke, and an examination of his work over the past 18 months show that, at the end of the day, the difficulty has always been Mr. Denktash.

Mr. Derek Enright: The Turkish army is supposedly defending human rights, but should we not consider Turkey's own record on human rights in relation to the Kurds or, indeed, even Manchester United supporters?

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has made his point. I do not want to go down that road because of restrictions on time and the fact that the Minister wants to give as full a reply as possible to the debate.
The Turkish Government have a substantial involvement in the issue. Their transplantation policy constantly creates a position in which it will be more and more difficult to reach a just solution. The hon. Member for


Hendon, South was right to say that the northern Cypriots resent the transplantation of mainland Turks, who are disturbing the whole of their cultural pattern. The people from Anatolia may be coming under duress or of their own free will, but they are coming to a foreign country. Cyprus is Cyprus and Turkey is Turkey.
The transplantation of populations is a form of ethnic cleansing—or ethnic engineering, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said—and it can only confound the possibility of a proper and just settlement. As I have said, some 37 per cent. of the most fertile part of the island is occupied by 18 per cent. of the population. The only way the conflict can be resolved is by international negotiation, but the United Nations is running out of patience and may eventually have to take some draconian decisions to reach a solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred to the possibility of Cyprus joining the European Union. I am a little more optimistic than she was about the British Government's views on that. My understanding is that the former Minister of State at the Foreign Office said that the entry of Cyprus would be part of the next tranche of enlargement. That will trigger some action and there may be some movement to end the stalemate, which can only be of benefit to a problem that has been bogged down for 20 years.
Mr. Denktash has said that if Cyprus joined the EU, he would want to link up with Turkey. Of course, Turkey also has a vested interest in an association with the EU and eventually becoming a member of it. Although it may not be a candidate at the present time, it has a treaty of association with the EU and I am sure that it would not want to lose that. The Turkish Government might not like Mr. Denktash using them as a threat against their possible future in the European Union.
The solution must be even-handed. There are Cypriots, some of Turkish origin and some of Greek origin, but they are all Cypriots. I am quite prepared to accept that there might have been abuses in the past on both sides, but in the future we must try to create a situation that is just and equitable, so that the warm people of Cyprus—whom many of us have met in this country—on both sides of the line can be safe in their homes and the future of their children secure.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on having secured a debate on this important subject on such a significant day for Cyprus. He has a long-standing and understandable interest in Cyprus.
We have heard a number of heartfelt speeches during this debate and I hope that it will be helpful if I set out some of the considerations governing our overall approach to the Cyprus problem and our view of recent developments in the United Nations-sponsored intercommunal talks, our role in support of United Nations efforts and how we see matters developing, and if I try to respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised. It has been a relatively short debate, but much ground has

been covered and I hope that hon. Members will not consider it discourteous if I do not give way because I, too, want to try to cover as much ground as possible.
As has been said, today is the 20th anniversary of the landings in Cyprus by the Turkish military, coming five days after a coup inspired by the then Greek military junta against the Republic of Cyprus. At the time, the United Kingdom Government rightly condemned those events and was instrumental in securing United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate end to the fighting.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) made poignant reference to the fate of many of those missing as a consequence of those events and our thoughts must be with the relatives of those missing from both communities. The United Nations committee for missing persons, including representatives of both communities, is charged with investigating the fate of those missing. I am afraid that at times one or both communities have not co-operated with the committee's work.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and others referred to the position with regard to settlers. We have made it clear that we regard their position, and any attempt to upset the demographic balance, unhelpful in attempts to reach a solution and we have said so. We joined other Commonwealth Governments at the Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus in October 1993 in calling for an end to such settlement.
Twenty years on, our thoughts must be with Cypriots of both communities who suffered then and have suffered since. We should think not of those killed and injured and their relatives, but of those who are displaced and have been unable to live in or return to their homes. We should think, too, of those members of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, including our service men, who have given their lives trying to prevent fighting, of those who have striven since to keep the peace and those who are still there nobly engaged in the peacekeeping task.
Our efforts to help to find a solution to the Cyprus dispute are driven by the wish to avoid a repetition of the events of 1974. Our overriding consideration is that we should support the efforts of the United Nations in terms of both of peacekeeping and of the good offices mission of the United Nations Secretary-General. But our status as a guarantor power means that we aim to complement as well as support Mr. Boutros-Ghali's mission, while observing the primacy of his mandate. In so doing, we seek to assist both communities to find the way forward to an agreement.
Our activity takes many forms. We are active diplomatically in talking to the parties and the other guarantor powers. We are active at the Security Council in New York, working for measures that will promote a settlement. I make it clear that we are not in the business of prescribing the details of a settlement—but if it is to be a peaceful, just and lasting settlement it will have to meet the interests of both communities and secure their full agreement. The history of such disputes shows that a settlement imposed without agreement will not last.
Although we would not prescribe the details of a settlement, we have views about its overall shape and form. The Secretary-General's ideas provide a good basis. He envisages a bicommunal, bizonal federation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary put it more clearly and in friendlier terms—one country, one Cyprus, one federal Government and two communities.
The House will gather that we remain committed to one Cyprus, and there is no question of our recognising the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus. We have always considered its declaration invalid and supported UN Security Council resolution 541 of 1983, which called on states not to recognise that republic. That is not to say that we fail to acknowledge the interests of the Turkish Cypriot community. We are prepared to bear the brunt of much criticism because of our contact with that community. We see that contact as consistent with our status as a guarantor power and our obligation to deal with both communities if we are to be effective in encouraging a settlement.
Refusal to deal with one community would merely lead to entrenchment and make a settlement harder to achieve. We maintain contact with Mr. Denktash and others prominent in the Turkish Cypriot community and who have influence, so that we can do our best to encourage that community to reach a settlement. We are determined that those contacts will continue.
We see our role as encouraging the two communities towards a settlement—chivvying and urging them and other guarantor powers, and fostering the right environment for negotiations. We do so not only by substantial diplomatic efforts and intensive contacts but through our contribution to the UN force in Cyprus. In addition to speaking to both communities, it is important to encourage them to speak to each other. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hosted a lunch in Nicosia for the two community leaders during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last October. Our High Commission in Nicosia is always trying to promote bicommunal activities and it deserves encouragement, not criticism, for doing so—as do those members of the communities who seek to develop contacts.
Since March 1993 the UN Secretary-General has tried to secure agreement on a package of confidence-building measures for Cyprus. They involve the re-opening under UN control of Varosha, a former Greek Cypriot suburb of Famagusta, and of Nicosia airport. The package is designed to facilitate progress towards overall settlement and to build mutual confidence between the two communities. The leader of the Greek Cypriot community, President Clerides, accepted the package in principle last year but the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, did not.
Consistent with our policy of supporting the UN, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised the Cyprus issue with their Turkish counterparts in January and urged them to promote a constructive approach by Mr. Denktash to the confidence-building measures. Shortly afterwards, he accepted the package in principle and UN-led talks on its implementation began in Cyprus on 17 February.
On 30 May the UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on progress. He concluded that a lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side was to blame for failure to reach agreement on the confidence-building package. He suggested five options for taking the process forward—withdrawal of the UN force in Cyprus, coercive measures against the Turkish Cypriots, a return to discussion of the set of ideas, far-reaching reflection on

how to approach the Cyprus problem and a continued focus on the confidence-building measures package. Since 30 May, Mr. Denktash has said that he could accept the UN package subject to clarifications subsequently discussed with the Secretary-General's deputy special representative and the proviso that the changes are recorded in a revised UN paper.
The UN Secretary-General wrote to the Security Council on 28 June and informed it of that helpful change in Mr. Denktash's position and concluded that the two sides were now close on substance but remained divided on how the package should be presented. He hoped to break the impasse by sending the two parties an identical letter that would set out a basis for agreement. The Secretary-General observed, however, that neither leader was prepared to commit himself to co-operate with him if he proceeded as he had intended. It is now the turn of the Security Council, which is considering the Secretary-General's report and letter and expected to give a steer on the way forward in the next few days.
Our view is that a single option out of the options set out in the Secretary-General's report of 30 May is no longer an appropriate choice. We favour a combination of the two options: a process of consultation led by the Secretary-General with a view to undertaking a fundamental and far-reaching reflection on ways of approaching the Cyprus problem, and a continued effort to secure implementation of the confidence-building measures. We are working for a response which would initiate that wider process of consultation and examine the substance of the problem while not simply jettisoning what has been achieved in detailed negotiations on the confidence-building measures package.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of the possible European Union accession. I make it clear that the UK supports membership of the Community for those European countries that want to join and can meet all the conditions of membership. Cyprus applied to join the European Union in July 1990. The European Commission submitted its opinion on the application in June 1993, and the opinion confirmed Cyprus's European identity and character and its vocation to belong to the Community. On the basis of the progress achieved to date under the 1972 EC/Cyprus association agreement the opinion was generally positive about Cyprus's ability to adopt the necessary acquis within a reasonable time scale, but a number of structural and other reforms are still necessary.
The opinion also recognised the difficulties of accession ahead of an intercommunal settlement, but, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
We want to remove those difficulties; we want to see Cyprus admitted. That is one reason … why we, perhaps more than any other outside country, are working so hard to find a solution … Our attitude is a positive one—to remove the obstacles to the accession of Cyprus."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 702.]
It is important to stress that it is not in the power of the United Kingdom, the European Union or, indeed, the United Nations, to compel a workable solution—

The allotted time having expired, the debate was concluded, in accordance with MADAM SPEAKER'S statement—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c.1197.]

Orders of the Day — Newspaper Prices

Dr. Tony Wright: There is always a certain tension when politicians start talking about the press, and so there should be. As H. L. Mencken famously said, the proper relationship of journalists to politicians is that of dogs to lamp posts. The fact is, though, that there are some pretty savage dogs out there at the moment and they are getting more savage by the day. I think that it is up to the lamp post to take some interest in them and to try to suggest that some kind of response is required.
I wish to talk about the so-called price war—the phenomenon of predatory pricing—that is now rampant in what we used to call Fleet street, but which, post-Wapping, we have to find some other way to describe. I shall remind the House of what has been happening and give a short chronology of the background to tonight's debate.
Let us return to last year, and I shall take the House through the sequence. On 12 July 1993, The Sun dropped its cover price from 25p to 20p. Also on 12 July, the Daily Mirror responded by dropping its price to 10p for one day only. On 26 July, the Daily Mail increased its cover price from 30p to 32p. On 2 August, the Daily Express went up from 30p to 32p in line with the Daily Mail. On 16 August, Today experimented by reducing its price from 25p to 20p in the Liverpool area only. On 6 September, The Times dropped its price from 45p to 30p between Mondays and Fridays, and from 55p to 40p on Saturdays. On 10 October, the price of the Independent on Sunday rose from 90p to £1. On 12 October, The Independent increased its price from 45p to 50p between Mondays and Saturdays.
On 10 January 1994, The Sun dropped its price from 20p to 10p for one day to support its television game show promotion. On 24 January, Today dropped its cover price to 10p for one day only. On 23 June, The Daily Telegraph dropped the price of its Monday-to-Friday editions from 48p to 30p. Also on 23 June, The Independent dropped its price to 20p for one day only. On 24 June, The Times reduced its price further from 30p to 20p between Mondays and Fridays and from 40p to 30p on Saturdays. In the past few days, News International has sought to extend its predatory pricing to Scotland, with similar effects.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Lowering the price of Today to 10p is a classic example of predatory pricing. In connection with Scotland, however, does my hon. Friend recall that the late Roy Thomson was made to choose between continuing to own newspapers such as The Scotsman and giving up his STV holdings, or keeping his television holdings and giving up his newspapers? Faced with the choice, he gave up his television holdings. That might be a good precedent for making Mr. Murdoch choose between his newspapers and his extremely lucrative BSkyB. It is one or t'other.

Dr. Wright: As always, my hon. Friend has made a pertinent point. I hope to deal with it shortly, in terms of similar choices that may have to be made now. It is an interesting precedent from an era that was far more mindful of such issues; the spirit is rather different now.
That, then, is what has been happening on the news stands in the past year. The question is, why has it been happening? What is behind it? The answer is quite simple: one dominant newspaper group and one media magnate

—News International and Mr. Rupert Murdoch—have sought to drive out as much of the competition as possible. There is no doubt about the intention or the strategy; there has been a certain openness about it. There can be no excuse for not knowing what has been going on.
Let me give the developments a wider context. At a time when the overall sales of newspapers are falling, it is no longer possible to expand by increasing the total share of newspaper sales, because the trend is in the opposite direction. The only way in which to prosper and advance is to seek to take existing shares, and to do so in an aggressive and, if possible, predatory way.
How can that be done? In the case that we are discussing, the organisation concerned is sitting on a large sum—a treasure. It is possible to raid that treasure in an attempt to drive out those who are not sitting on treasures. We are talking of an organisation that made a profit of £439 million last year, and is quite happy to draw on those reserves to see off the competition and strengthen its own market position, although it is making enormous short-term losses by doing so. It is sitting on a pot of gold because it is sitting on an empire.
The empire involves a third of the press here, but it is a global empire, with a huge array of newspapers and magazines across this country, Australia and the United States, as well as Sky Television, Twentieth Century Fox films, Fox Television in the United States and a developing interest in satellite television in the far east. It is a global media empire and it is possible to draw on its resources to engage in predatory pricing here. There is no dispute about the fact that that is happening because the strategy is clear.
The intention has been described by a number of people. The Independent is one of the newspapers that has been in the firing line and it has seen its circulation drop from 334,000 a year ago to 277,000 now. For its main enemy that is no doubt seen as a great achievement, but I believe that it is an enormous loss in terms of pluralism and diversity in this country. It is hard to dissent from the view of Mr. Andreas Whittham Smith, the editor of The Independent, who wrote a signed editorial in the newspaper last month in which he said:
Two right-wing ideologues, Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black, have set about destroying the quality newspaper market.
That is the intention and, from their point of view, it is succeeding.
I prefer the comment which was relayed by the editor of The Times, Mr. Peter Stothard, who said:
I have had one letter of complaint from a vicar who did not think it"—
the price cut—
was right.
As ever, a solitary vicar, if no one else, understands what is going on and a solitary vicar understands that there are ethical, moral and democratic issues surrounding this issue which need to be addressed.
There can be no doubt that it is News International's ability to draw on its reserves which is enabling it to sustain the strategy. Reliable reports suggest that The Times is losing at least 2p on every copy that it now sells, and some estimates are higher than that. Despite a 42 per cent. rise in circulation as a result of its pricing policy, its daily revenue is now £45,000 lower that it was last autumn, despite adding 230,000 copies to its circulation. It is taking huge losses in pursuit of the strategy upon which it has embarked.
The pricing policy of The Sun was the precursor of the strategy for The Times. Its circulation is 20 per cent. higher than the year before the predatory pricing started, but the 5p price cut means that it is earning £70,000 a day less than it was before it increased its sales.
The figures that I have given are rather modest. Some of the figures from the media analysts are more startling.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to give an even more immodest figure. Of the 20p for The Times, I am told that 17.5p goes to the wholesalers and retailers who distribute and sell the newspaper and the 2.5p that comes back to News International does not begin to cover the cost of printing and paper, which I am told is about 15p per copy. I believe that those are accurate figures.

Dr. Wright: They are accurate, and extraordinary, figures. Although the figures differ depending on the source that one uses, they all point in the same direction. It is not disputed, even by sources close to News International, that the figures are of that order. It is deliberately taking huge losses in pursuit of a certain objective, and it will take those losses over an exceedingly prolonged period because it can afford to do so. I shall say in a moment what I believe the outcome of that will be.
If we take seriously the Office of Fair Trading's obligations in relation to predatory pricing, and if we cast our eye over the cases that that body has looked into over the years, we must find that this is a classic illustration of predatory pricing. Predatory pricing occurs when a dominant player in the market deliberately sets out to cut prices in order to drive out competitors, using its market to do so.
I found it extraordinary that the Director General of Fair Trading said last September that he could not become involved in this case because it seemed to him to be merely "aggressive pricing" rather than predatory pricing. It is interesting that now, in the wake of the further decrease in the price of The Times, the position has changed and some sort of inquiry can be held. I shall deal with that point in a moment.
Let us consider the ground rules for competition policy, about which the Minister will doubtless have something to say. Section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1980 defines an anti-competitive practice as
a course of conduct pursued by persons
in the course of business, which
has or is intended to have or is likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with the production, supply or acquisition of goods".
Surely that is precisely what is happening now—it is a directly anti-competitive practice used by a monopoly player in the market to drive out competition.
The question is, what is the response? Let us look beyond what has been happening for the past year. Mr. Rupert Murdoch informed us that his vision of the future is an industry in which they may be only three newspapers —The Times, the Daily Mail, and The Sun. That is his vision of the plurality of British newspapers. Or course, he already owns two of the three.
We have to make up our minds—do we think that such behaviour and such ambition are consistent with what the House has always said, from Pilkington onwards, about the need to guarantee pluralism and the need for the state to prevent monopoly players from exercising excessive power? Do we still hold the same views, or do we want to

be rolled over by Mr. Murdoch so that he can realise his vision of a future with only The Times, the Daily Mail and The Sun?

Mr. Dalyell: It is a matter of record that that is precisely what Mr. Murdoch said to Sir David English—it is not only a figment of Opposition Members' imagination. He is on record as saying that we would be left with those three newspapers.

Dr. Wright: Indeed, I think that Mr. Murdoch said not only with ambition but with a certain zestful pride that it would show that the strategy had worked and that there had been another gain for his media empire. The question is, where does it leave the rest of us? Where does it leave democracy, choice and diversity?
That is not to be seen as aberrant behaviour. It should not take us by surprise, because in a sense it is only what large businesses always do when they can get away with it. That is why the cases that the Office of Fair Trading has had to investigate over the years are exactly comparable with that case. For a major player, in its own terms that is rational market behaviour. If it is possible to do such things, it is rational to do them. If the law and the regulations are such that it is possible to engage in predatory pricing to drive out the competition, it is rational business behaviour to do so.
That is precisely what is happening now—because such developments have not been challenged or checked. Therefore, as in other business areas, the attempt is made to drive out a competitor that one does not like. If one can afford to take great losses in achieving that, one will do so.
The problem arises because we are talking not about baked beans but about newspapers. Traditionally we have thought that it was rather important to guarantee the integrity and plurality of newspapers, and to protect them from such business behaviour. There was something special about newspapers. There was something special, something vital to our democracy, about the ventilation and distribution of opinion. It was not a business like any other.
However, we now have people like Mr. Murdoch—

Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister appears to be doing his correspondence? Even now I do not think that he is with us. Does my hon. Friend think that that bodes well for the quality of the reply that he is likely to receive to his excellent speech?

Dr. Wright: My hon. Friend makes the sort of impish point in which we all delight. However, having spent two or three months locked up with the Minister in the Committee that was discussing the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, I am used to his being otherwise engaged while I am making important points. Indeed, we had an exchange on that subject in Committee.
What I have described is rational market behaviour, but it is rational market behaviour that is simply not acceptable when applied to newspapers and to opinion. We see such behaviour elsewhere, too, of course. If we cast our eyes around at the operations, including those of Mr. Murdoch, of media moguls in other parts of the world, we see exactly what is going on, and how different regulatory systems require different responses.
In Australia, for example, the Government have traditionally been a wholly owned subsidiary of the


Murdoch empire. But in the United States Mr. Murdoch ran into difficulties, because there was a much tighter regulatory regime there. When Senator Edward Kennedy sought to reactivate a rather ailing regulatory regime, Mr. Murdoch, according to the recent book about him by William Shawcross, described it as "liberal totalitarianism", and set out to get Kennedy through his tabloid newspapers in the United States. Fortunately, the regulatory regime got him instead. In New York and in Boston he had to back off, because there were rules there that made it impossible for him to proceed.
Unfortunately, the position here is different. It is well understood that one of the large anomalies or large holes in the Broadcasting Act 1990 is the fact that it does not prevent people with satellite television interests from moving into newspapers. That made possible, in a way that was most helpful to Mr. Murdoch, the kind of cross-media ownership that we have traditionally taken steps to prevent. At the time, he was thought to be extremely helpful to the Conservative party. There may be different views about that now, but at the time the view was that the hole had been nicely opened up so that Mr. Murdoch could walk through it.
We are having this discussion at a time when there is a tremendous push to sweep away the existing legislative inhibitions to cross-media ownership. We are being told almost daily by those who have power inside the industry that the time has come to move decisively in the direction of further deregulation and that the only way in which to become global players in the contemporary media business is to sweep away all the regulatory structures.
If we look around the world, we see exactly what such a change might mean. One does not have to look much further than Italy where Mr. Berlusconi is now happily bringing neo-fascists into his Government. He sits at the apex of a media-political empire. One can see there the potential consequences of our sweeping away regulatory regimes. Indeed, if we are serious about pluralism, we must be serious about enshrining pluralism in structures that have some chance of delivering it.
This is a matter of some urgency. The Office of Fair Trading has, I am afraid, not acted with sufficient urgency. It would be extremely serious and damaging if—the Office of Fair Trading having announced that it was finally to look at the matter, after having said initially that it would not —we now had a protracted period in which the OFT brooded on the matter for the best part of a year, after which it might—or might not—make a recommendation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. By that time, the fate of important and serious newspapers would have been irretrievably damaged and some of them might have disappeared. I press the need for urgency in relation to the issue now.
There is also a longer-term issue, which is that of media ownership. We must think afresh about the nature of pluralism in terms of developing media conglomerates. The European Union drew attention to the matter a few years ago in its Green Paper on pluralism in the media. The issue is there and there is a tremendous drive from those inside the industry to throw off the regulatory structures. We must start to ask what the public interest is; in relation

to this issue, we must ask what the public interest is in ensuring that newspapers survive and that the plurality of newspapers survives.
Sometimes we have cause to be grateful for things that may seem disconcerting at the time. I believe that we shall come to be grateful to The Sunday Times for its actions a week or two ago in showing how certain actions in this place can seem extraordinarily reprehensible to people outside although they evidently seem perfectly normal to people inside. I hope that out of that intervention, some good will come. Similarly, I think and hope that this price war—this predatory pricing—in so far as it reveals the ability of a powerful player to seek to use his power simply to drive out competitors so that his market share can be increased, will be so offensive to the public interest that it will produce renewed attention to the question of how we can guarantee pluralism and diversity.
We have a price war raging at the moment which is profoundly damaging to diversity and profoundly damaging to democracy. The Government, in their deregulatory mode, seem to find it perfectly acceptable and nothing to worry about. I assure the Minister that many people in the country are profoundly worried by what is happening and would grieve enormously if serious titles were lost. It would be damaging to the people who work for them, it would be damaging to the people who read them and it would be damaging to our democracy.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If I am the only Back Bencher who wants to speak, I can assure the House that I do not intend to speak for all that long.
I declare various interests. I earned money by writing for various newspapers, and I have had lunch with various people in the media.
At the end of this debate, I intend to read the papers that have been sent to me by the public affairs people from News International. The only part that I have picked up so far, because I thought that I should come to this debate, is that I may be wrong in saying that the subsidies to The Times have come from outside this country. That may be accurate; I do not know, and I do not particularly care.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has done a service to politics in his book on politics, and he has done a service to the newspaper industry in introducing this debate today. He has clearly stated many of the issues.
I come to this debate with a history. When News International took over The Times and The Sunday Times, I did not support my party on the motion tabled by the Labour party. There were strong arguments that that takeover should have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The rules as I interpreted them, and as the Government should have interpreted them, were that The Sunday Times was clearly a profitable newspaper, and there was no ground on which the Government should rely in not referring The Sunday Times takeover, even though it was said that that was the only way to save The Times.
It is worth remembering that there is a spectrum of newspaper pricing. It would be possible for a proprietor or a company owning a newspaper to distribute it free. In many of our constituencies, newspapers are distributed free. The distinction which the hon. Gentleman would


make is that those newspapers are not distributed free for long at a loss. They rely on getting sufficient advertising to make them a commercial justification.
It is worth noticing that we have one broadsheet daily newspaper, The Guardian, which has a structure that was set up especially so it could be produced at a loss. The Scott trust is designed to keep The Guardian going, even though at times it may look as though it is at risk of making a profit.
Perhaps the distinction between The Guardian and other newspapers is that it is not a threat to other newspapers. No one can claim that The Daily Telegraph loses a serious number of readers to The Guardian. It may not gain the young readers that go to or stay with The Guardian for as long as they can face the letters page.
The Observer was a loss-making newspaper for many of its 200 years of history. At one stage, it was bought by an oil company, Atlantic Richfield, and it was owned to greater or lesser degrees of distinction by Lonrho. There was a time when the Observer was losing about the same as its cover price on every issue sold, but no other newspaper seriously claimed that the Observer was making inroads into its market.
The reason why the Sunday Express was losing some of its share of the market from its previously phenomenally successful position was not because the Observer was being sold at a loss. I do not think that commercially successful editors of The Sunday Times would argue that the Observer being sold at a loss was serious competition to them. I think that the reason for that is partly ideology.
Now that the Observer is in new ownership, it tends to run its front page as though it was the Monday of The Guardian, where the story is not quite as reliable or as balanced as the stories on other days of the week. The Observer did not go in for predatory pricing. It tended to price itself at roughly the same level as The Sunday Times.
If people were to ask about the distinction between the price wars now and those loss-making newspapers, I think that it is the increasing of the loss of The Times. As to the pricing of The Sun, one can argue that the paper is still making a profit. I do not want to argue The Sun case too strongly. My view is that The Sun is in a declining market and its sales will fall faster that those of the News of the World. The reason for that is the combination of two issues.
The first issue is the change in the way in which people go to work. As more and more people drive to work, not only on days when there is a rail strike but as a general change in pattern and as a result of greater access to motoring, they do not pick up a newspaper at a news stand on the way to work as they did when they went by public transport, by foot or even by bike. That is a change.
The second issue is that, over the next two or three decades, or possibly in the next two or three years, more and more people will set the standards for what they take home and what they do and buy at work, which are higher than the ones that they had in the past. A significantly growing number of purchasers of The Sun will say that it is not the newspaper that they want their children to take once they start reading one. A general uplift will take place, which will be reflected in our politics and newspapers.
The suggestion from Rupert Murdoch that The Sun will not just continue to be a boobs and bottoms newspaper is correct. I must say, however, that no one should be worried about naked bodies, because, if we take our clothes off and

look in the mirror, we will discover that we have one for ourselves. One often finds more naked flesh in The Guardian than in The Sun.
The change in the nature of the newspaper market applies just as much to the discrimination of readers in all part of our community.
As the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood has said, the interesting question relates to The Times. Why are we ignoring our normal monopoly and fair trading conventions, if not our rules, when a newspaper deliberately doubles its loss on a sustained basis? We are talking not about a one-off price reduction, but about a sustained campaign to reduce the price of the newspaper.
It is not for me to argue for Mr. Black, Hollinger Incorporated or the Telegraph Group, although I have friends who work for it. It is not for me to argue whether Mr. Black, or his directors, were wrong to get involved in the price war. It may have been wrong for the Telegraph Group to cut its price, but I do not want to second-guess it. A price war requires two to tango.
As a result of that price war, the number of broadsheet newspapers will fall significantly, and rather faster than the normal process of movement in the newspaper market. We are used to seeing people create newspapers in this country. My namesake, but no relation as far as I know, because I suspect that he was born without parents and died without children, Horatio Bottomley, showed how it was possible to build up newspapers, in part by pandering to people's prejudice and by being a great advertiser.
We have seen the creation of great newspaper families, in part by them backing good editors and by conducting vigorous, but often unsuccessful, campaigns. I cannot think of a single campaign run by the Beaverbrook papers Press between the wars that was successful, although I have not subjected them to detailed analysis. People quite enjoy campaigning, even it is not a success.
We have seen newspapers increase their circulation to 5 million copies, and then decline. That is part of the normal cycle, and it is certainly not for the House to argue that we should have a set number of broadsheet newspapers—so-called serious, quality newspapers.
In this country, we have the distinction of a greater diversity of newspapers and easier access to creating a newspaper than elsewhere. It is interesting to note that France has one Sunday newspaper, of no great account. We now have good weekend newspapers on Saturday and Sunday—in part due to the innovations of The Independent —which offer fine, detailed coverage.
The current problems have arisen because we have been setting the wrong rules for the media, and not applying the rules we have. I have already referred to the Sunday Times takeover, which was a open breach of the law. In the past five years, we have set laws about cross-media ownership, but we have focused on the wrong target. Technology has overtaken us, plus some people's clever wriggling around the regulations. 
We said that major newspapers could not become satellite broadcasters. Maxwell BSB did not work, but Murdoch Sky did work. We now recognise that there will be no shortage of capacity in satellite broadcasting—once more Astra satellites are operational, as many channels as possible will offer the service. I suggest that we should accept what the major media groups, including Pearson, Associated Newspapers and Guardian Media, have said. They believe that we should drop the bar on those groups


having more than a 20 per cent. stake in terrestrial broadcasting. It may be too late for some but it may open up the market in a better way.
We should try to treat newspapers as though they are ordinary industries, as far as possible. The same approach goes for rules that apply to journalists and for the ownership of newspapers. That would suggest that the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be asked to examine newspapers. I think that they should recommend that any group or individual should be required to divest if it or he has a national newspaper circulation that is 20 per cent. of the market or more, unless there is only one title. If the group or individual has one title that has 35 or 38 per cent. of the market, that is fine.
We. know, of course, that newspapers can cross subsidise on a loss-making basis, which is what The Times is doing. I suggest that it has increased its losses by 50 per cent., if not 100 per cent. Unless it can show that at that level of pricing it can, with a reasonable time scale, start making a profit because of extra advertising revenue or extra sales, it should be required to stop the loss-making subsidy or face a mandatory divestment order. That would wake people up to some extent. At the same time, it would be reasonable and fair.
Why did that approach not apply to the Observer? The answer is that, in terms of the market, it did not matter. We should be able to say what does matter in the market. We should have some discretion. If someone said of the magazine market, in which I think there are 5,000 titles, "Why is Naim Attallah able to subsidise The Oldie for as long as he chooses?"—I am sorry that he is choosing not to do it for longer, because I think it is a good magazine, or at least the writing is good—the answer is that it does not matter all that much.
If someone says, "What about the Literary Review and its subsidy?"—£25 comes to me every other month if Auberon Waugh accepts one of my articles—the answer again is that that does not matter too much to competitors.It does not threaten The Times Literary Supplement and the book review pages in serious newspapers.
There is a scale within which some things obviously matter while others do not. We can argue about where between those two points we should start paying attention. I would argue that the issue of The Times is way beyond any margin of debate.

Mr. Robin Cook: I would not dissent from any of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I caution him on where he is taking the argument. I think that he will agree that, if we take as an example that delightful magazine, The Oldie, running at a loss, the test of whether it is guilty of predatory competitive behaviour is not that it is running at a loss but whether there is predatory pricing that is designed to force other magazines out of the market. None of the publications to which the hon. Gentleman has referred could possibly be accused of predatory pricing, albeit they were or are running at a loss.

Mr. Bottomley: Maybe so. I can only offer my thoughts, which may be inadequate because this is the second time today that I have bothered the House with a few reflections.
I think that we are in basic agreement. Some things matter, some things matter more and some things matter a great deal. I have a friendly disrespect for the press. I am happy to condemn it. I think that it should face the same controls as we do as Back-Bench Members in Parliament, where there are few rules that really restrict us.
It boils down to what people think we can get away with or what they are willing to tolerate from us. Those are the considerations that matter most. As I said during the debate on referring issues to the Committee of Privileges, we should set standards for ourselves. At the same time, the press should set standards for itself. Our standards should be the higher. That would seem to be reasonable.
It is more elegant if the press criticises politicians rather than politicians criticising the press. In this instance, we are not criticising it. Instead, we are considering the business side of newspapers, and that matters more.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. On the business side, can The Times, at a price of 20p, be seriously expected to make money without at first killing off at least one other broadsheet newspaper? If the answer to that question is no, is the Murdoch policy of The Times at 20p not a clear example of predatory pricing, which makes the hon. Gentleman's worries all too real?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may be right. That is a matter now for the OFT. I agree that it does not have to spend so very long looking into the matter, at least on a preliminary basis. There is a time constraint, because of the market conditions.
If News International, the publishers of The Times, can show that, even if other newspapers came out of the market, it has the prospect of making money at 20p—it does not have to guarantee it—I would not want to stand in the way of such a large donation to readers. Clearly, it is good that people can buy a newspaper at a lower price. At times, newspapers have acted like a cartel in pushing prices up. We are now getting at them for cut-throat competition. Life is like the tide—a sort of sine curve. At the moment, we are concerned about cut-throat competition.
The Independent started to lose its way before price cutting began. To depersonalise the matter, its proprietors made a mistake in saying that they wanted to knock out The Sunday Correspondent, and their greatest mistake was to launch The Independent on Sunday. They came into the market before securing their base, and they have been unable to keep both going effectively. I reserve my comments on one or two of the editorial judgments until after the editorship has changed.
Not surprisingly, the slide in The Daily Telegraph's circulation began before predatory pricing started. The Evening Standard has also seen a reduction in its circulation. If I were discussing the matter outside the House, I would say that, if both The Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard spend their time attacking my wife, they cannot expect their sales to stay up, because she is one of the more popular people around. If they tell people that she is unpopular, they will lose interest.
A new newspaper will be launched the next parliamentary day—today, in normal terms. People will stand at 40 spots around London and give away 100,000 copies of the newspaper. Presumably it will begin as a


loss-making newspaper, but it will not keep going for long at a loss because there is no big pot of gold to keep it going. It must become a commercial success.
What the House is saying to the Office of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the proprietors of News International is that we are not interested in their driving other newspapers out of business and then putting up their price, having driven part of the competition out of the market. They must demonstrate that they will keep the price low, whatever happens in the competitive marketplace.
If they then say that it is a challenging business and ask why we are so jealous about them making money out of Sky after it nearly went bust, we must answer that that is the past. We are concerned about the future, and what provides the best opportunities in the medium term for media consumers. We are on the side of the readership and, in the context of television and radio, those who watch and listen.
If News International is interested in my views on this matter, it should start to pay more attention to the price at which it makes its encryption service available to satellite television. That, too, will be a matter of interest.
Where, for some reason, there is an effective monopoly, it will require people taking a legislative interest which, in time, will become stronger and more effective than some of the other controls that we thought we had brought in—not against News International but to create a media system that allows competition, entry, adventure and entrepreneurs but avoids unfair competition.
There is not much more for me to say, except that the best thing is for News International to say at what price The Times could be sold profitably. If it then says that The Times is not a commercial proposition, it should try to find a solution for it that does not require sustained, unfair price competition for its competitors.
In the next five or 10 years, some newspapers will go out of business. A battle is going on between Today and the Daily Mirror, and I do not know who will win. It does not matter to me whether both survive, but I doubt whether both will.
I do not wish to pick on a particular Sunday newspaper, but if I were talking to a friend in a pub, I would say that I am not sure that we gain a great deal from the Sunday People. It does not add much that does not already exist in the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World—or perhaps vice versa.
In the daily market, I am not sure what the long-term place of the Daily Star is. However, if we looked 20 years or more into the past—I forget the precise timing—we would remember that The Sun would probably have gone out of business if Rupert Murdoch had not come along and turned it into a successful newspaper with his editors. The saving of newspapers can therefore be as important as their destruction.
We should have a reasonably fair playing field. The only level playing field that I ever encountered was in a water polo swimming pool, which is rather easier as it has less unlevel ground than most. If we speak clearly about what we think the principles should be, we can let the outcome be uncertain. One pays for it, but one avoids the unfairness that was wisely mentioned by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I want to make a short contribution on the impact of the price war on the regional press. I have to tell the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who gave a most interesting discourse, that The Sunday People is widely read in Rotherham.
When I was a boy at school, there seemed to be many more newspapers than there are now. When any newspaper drops out of existence, for whatever reason, I think that democracy is diminished. The loss of former Ministers or their replacement today is a headline; the loss of a newspaper is extremely bad news. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who said:
If I had to choose between a government without newspapers or newspapers without government I would have no hesitation in opting for the latter.
We have had price wars, or circulation wars, before in this country—notably in the 1930s, when giant circulation wars were conducted by giving away encyclopaedias, not by cutting prices. It would be a nice treat today if The Times were competing by offering "Encyclopaedia Britannica" instead of chopping its price by more than 50 per cent.
Although I want to enter some words of reservation about The Times, I think that, in the past year or so, its coverage has improved immensely. Its features are strong. Its sense of news—I speak as a former president of the National Union of Journalists—is extremely positive and interesting. Today it led on Mr. Santer's repudiation of the Prime Minister's views on Europe—a tough, no-nonsense news story, which I think other newspapers should be running with. Perhaps, instead of conducting the price war, it could have stuck to its new, rather more virile, news feature and comments service, and handled the other competition on fair terms.
I am very worried about the fact that The Independent is under threat. The Independent has been a positive contribution to the British press and, were it to go out of existence, it would emphasise once more the fact that we are living in a country in which, in recent years, we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I hold The Independent in high esteem. It is a paper of great value, which has contributed much to debate in our society.
It is not for the House—not for politicians or Ministers —to say which paper lives and which dies, but, inasmuch as we have regulation of anything, we are entitled to hold a view about pricing that will place that newspaper under severe threat.
In addition, the pricing war that is now under way places the existence of some of our regional papers under potential pressure, according to research that I have undertaken with the regional press. Statistics from the Audit Bureau of Circulation are not yet available for the first half of this year, during which The Times and The Daily Telegraph jumped over the precipice on the price front, but the signs are that sales are down, and that advertising is under threat. The fact that newspapers such as the Yorkshire Post in my part of the country and the Northern Echo continue to maintain a strong existence should be important to Parliament.
We live in a centralised society. We live in the only country in Europe—I speak now about what is read in England although it also affects Scotland, Wales and Ireland—where the press is entirely focused in one city. The French press is more regional. I think that the strength of the German economy and German society is that there


is no one city that, as it were, controls the free flow of information in the way that London does in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, if there were any serious threat to either the Glasgow Herald or The Scotsman, many Scots would think that the quality of life in Scotland was thereby diminished? It is a serious matter, as my hon. Friend says, not only for the regional press, but for the Scottish press—certainly in relation to advertising. When the threat last arose and Roy Thomson faced problems, he was made to choose. His editor, Alistair Dunnett, said that at that time the score was laid firmly on the line that it was one or the other, and people could not use television to harm competitors.

Mr: MacShane: My mother, who lives in Glasgow, and many of my aunts worry each morning about which paper they will buy, the Glasgow Herald or The Scotsman—both are distinguished in their own way, and both contribute much to the different climate of political culture and debate in Scotland. Were those papers to be faced with any serious challenge to their existence by a pricing war determined in London but okayed in the United States, that would be a serious threat to democratic debate in our country.
In recent years, there has been an increasing tendency for households to buy only one newspaper. The hon. Member for Eltham mentioned the changing pattern of newspaper purchase and reading habits. Recently, when I have found myself jingling the coins in my pocket on a railway station, I have opted for The Times simply because it is half the price of my favourite reads, the Financial Times and The Guardian. As a materialist, I have to count my pennies.
A variety of press is expressed through our healthy and positive regional daily papers. I am referring not to the free advertising sheets, but those papers which employ a substantial number of journalists. The Western Morning News has 63 reporters covering its region, compared with The Times and The Daily Telegraph, which have none covering that region. Those regional daily papers make a great contribution to our regional culture.
I hope that the Government are prepared to accept such concerns and to support the reference to the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if it is relevant. I also hope that the Government are prepared to join in the cross-party desire to discover what measures can be taken. The moment one regulates, introduces laws or sets up a commission that can determine pricing or advertising, one interferes in the pure logic of the market. Most people in this country want a free, varied, pluralistic and decentralised press.
I fully support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), and I am delighted to see hon. Friends present who, like me, are concerned about the plurality of the press in this country. The House will have to return to this subject.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on an excellent speech and on his good fortune in winning this debate.
The price war is a symptom of a much larger problem. Gradually and remorselessly, control of most of what we see and read is slipping into the hands of a handful of ruthless megalomaniacs. As other hon. Members have said, it is perhaps the most serious threat to democracy in this country.
Mr. Murdoch is only the most obvious of the megalomaniacs with a grasp on our national newspaper and television industries. He owns five national newspapers and 50 per cent. of BSkyB. He appears to enjoy special arrangements that apply only to him. I understand that a regulation is enforced against all other ITV companies stating that at least 50 per cent.—or perhaps 60 per cent.—of what they broadcast must be produced domestically. That does not apply to satellite television, with the result that Mr. Murdoch is able to buy off-the-peg junk television from Australia and America. He is gradually dragging down standards in ITV, which has to move down market to compete with him. He is also able to accumulate the sort of profits that have allowed him to engage in the present ruthless price-cutting war.
The Murdoch press has polluted our culture during the past 20 years. The effect of Mr. Murdoch has not been just on those newspapers that he happens to own; it has been on competitors who have felt obliged to go down market to compete with him. Nowhere has the effect of The Sun been greater than on the quality of the Daily Mirror, which has deteriorated badly in recent years.
Now there is the spectacle of ITV going down market to compete with BSkyB. Gradually, documentaries such as "First Tuesday" and "This Week" have disappeared. "World in Action" is under pressure to move to a slot at 11 o'clock at night, when it will have an audience of 2 million instead of 8 million. Murdoch's effect on ITV will be similar to his effect on the Daily Mirror. Everyone will go down market to compete.
Of course, it is not only Murdoch who is involved. During the past two years there has been the rise, for example, of Mr. Michael Green of Carlton Television. He now owns a great swathe of ITV and he was donating money to the Conservative party even as he bid for the franchise. He also controls 36 per cent. of Independent Television News and 36 per cent. of Independent Radio News by virtue of the fact that he controls two of the major ITV companies.
Mr. Gerry Robinson, who came from the catering division of Granada Television, now has a similar hold on two other commercial television companies and a large stake in the ownership of ITN. I believe that that is already being reflected in ITN, which increasingly consists of one anchor man talking to another anchor man, usually about a mile from ITN headquarters. There is pressure, too, to move "News at Ten" out of the way to make room for junk television—to 6.30 pm or 11.30 pm when the audiences will be similarly diminished.
All that is having an effect on our national culture. It is not a left or right-wing bias that worries me; it is trivialisation. It is becoming increasingly hard for the average citizen to discover from the daily newspapers or the television that he or she is likely to be watching what is going on in the world. Already one sees the catastrophe in Rwanda having difficulty in outbidding Prince Charles or whatever the story of the night happens to be on ITV news. That is a large problem. It will become increasingly difficult to have a diverse political culture if we do not have a diverse source of news and information.
There are some obvious solutions. The most obvious is a little bit of liberal anti-monopoly legislation—a thought that I am sure will appeal to easily the majority of British citizens. It would not cost any Government any money, and would require only a little bit of political will. The proposition that there should be only one daily and one Sunday newspaper per proprietor would not prove politically controversial. It would make a big difference to the diversity of newspaper ownership in Britain.
If we wanted to go a step further we could lay down one or two rules about the kind of proprietors or corporations that would be entitled to bid for the assets that come on the market. We could go down the American road—I do not necessarily argue that we should—and say that only corporations owned by British citizens or at least EC citizens could compete. Mr. Murdoch has already changed his nationality once from Australian to American in order to come within the American regulations. It is a stunt that I do not think that he would find it easy to pull twice.
There is great pressure to reduce the limits on cross-media ownership. They should be maintained. The regulations about the percentage of domestic production that already apply to independent television should be extended to Sky television. The fact that they have not been is an anomaly which I assume is a pay-off to Mr. Murdoch for his support over the years for the ruling party. It is an anomaly that cannot be justified and should be removed.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that something must be done about Murdoch's monopoly of the encryption system. Unless something is done about it, he will maintain his grip on satellite television and there will be no question of competition there. Something must be done to deprive him of that monopoly.
With regard to independent television, the Broadcasting Act 1990, as everyone knows—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, on occasions such as this, the subject matter is fairly broad, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject is newspaper prices.

Mr. Mullin: One of the questions that we must ask ourselves is from where Mr. Murdoch has obtained the enormous amount of loot that enables him to cut the price of his newspapers and to sustain losses of the sort that he is sustaining. The answer is that it comes from other parts of his empire, one of which is satellite television. That is why television is relevant. I am also describing the overall effect that the price war has on our political culture, of which television is an aspect. Mr. Murdoch has other television assets as well. He is also getting his hands on a slice of our publishing industry.
I shall not dwell on it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I return for a moment to where I was. Before the Broadcasting Act 1990, ITV was not broke and did not need fixing. I fail to see why the drift towards a monopoly that is beginning to occur there should be allowed to continue. In fact, it should be reversed.
We should not be afraid of regulation. Of course the state must be careful how it regulates the media. The only excuse is that one is regulating in the name of greater diversity, plurality and a greater flow of argument and information than already exists. Regulation has worked extremely well in the BBC over the years. It is one reason why the corporation remains the envy of the world and

why even the Government decided the other day to keep the BBC more or less as it is. We should not be afraid to create by way of regulation a newspaper industry that is as free and high quality as the BBC is in broadcasting.

Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important issue, which has attracted thoughtful and knowledgeable speeches from hon. Members representing both major parties. Perhaps it is a pity that no representative of any minority part is present to participate in a debate on an issue that affects the health of our democracy. Nothing comes nearer to touching that than the variety of our newspapers and the diversity of views that they contain. The newspaper industry has played an important part in our debates and it is right that, before the House rises for a prolonged period, we should have found time to debate a development that is likely to precipitate a crisis for a number of newspapers.
I have twice written to the Director General of Fair Trading about the price cuts at The Times. Price cutting and competition at an unrealistically low price is becoming a feature of the Murdoch press generally. Leaving aside the references to The Sun already made tonight, there is the interesting example of Today launching a Scottish edition at 10p. There is no way that one could justify such a price in calculating the commercial cost of producing that newspaper and the profit one could hope to make. That pricing is clearly a decision to obtain a market share by undercutting, at a loss, existing newspapers in that market.
Last September, I wrote to the Director General of Fair Trading drawing his attention to the reduction in the price of The Times to 30p. I will quote part of Sir Bryan Carsberg's reply, in declining to undertake an inquiry. I apologise to the House for wearying it with a quotation at this time, but it is a short one. He said:
At times there is a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing. I am satisfied on the basis of information available"—
last September—
that the reduction in the cover price of The Times reflects a calculated commercial decision by News International.
If there was only
a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing
last September, when The Times reduced its price to 30p, the subsequent reduction in the past month to 20p marches right across that fine line.
As the Minister is aware, I wrote again to Sir Bryan, suggesting that there is an even more compelling case for an inquiry into whether The Times is guilty of predatory pricing. Sir Bryan has agreed to an informal inquiry, to establish whether there are grounds for a formal reference. I argue that there is an overwhelming case for such a formal reference. It is hard in logic to avoid the conclusion that there is a case for a formal inquiry.
The grounds for an inquiry into predatory pricing were set out by the Director General of Fair Trading last year following his report on Thamesway. In that report, Sir Bryan set out three tests by which he would assess whether a company was guilty of predatory pricing. The first test was whether the new price was bound to incur losses for the company that had set it. I have to say that it is beyond contention that the reduction in the price of The Times to 20p will incur losses. It is not, as Sir Bryan expressed it last


September, a "calculated commercial decision". There is plainly no commercial justification for a reduction in price to 20p. It is clearly a decision driven by only one consideration—to undercut the rest of the market at a loss and thereby behave in a predatory fashion.
Before The Times had its first price cut, it was selling at 45p. All the figures are highly confidential, and therefore it is possible, as some of my hon. Friends have done, to produce different figures, but they all point broadly to the same conclusion. We understand that, at that stage, the margin on every copy of The Times was 30p. That is the amount left over after meeting the direct printing and distribution costs.
If that is the case and 45p produced a 35p margin, when one reduces the price to 20p, one is left with a margin of only 5p, because the printing and distribution costs have remained constant throughout that process. Those figures might be out by a penny or two here or there. It may indeed be 2½p, as one of my hon. Friends suggested. It might be only 3p, as I have seen suggested by one of the rivals to The Times. But even a margin of 5p comes nowhere near meeting the publishing costs involved in running the journalist enterprise with its overheads, not to mention its indirect advertising costs.
It is probable that The Times is now running at an annual loss in excess of between £20 million and £25 million a year. In other words, the decision to reduce its price to 20p was taken in the full knowledge that it would incur substantial and continuing losses, which have no prospect of being turned around by any increase in sales, because the margin on the increased copies sold comes nowhere near making a contribution to the overheads. In short, the losses are possible only because The Times is part of an immense empire and is now being cross-subsidised by the profits of other parts of that empire.
The problem is that, if The Times behaves in that way, it is setting a price that cannot be matched by independent newspapers, such as The Independent or The Guardian, which do not belong to large conglomerates and cannot hope to obtain large, continuing subsidies to cope with the losses that they would incur were they to try to compete with The Times at its present price. I believe that it is incontestable that the first test has been met and that the price reduction is increasing the losses for a paper that was already making a loss before the cut.
The second test was whether predatory pricing was a feasible business strategy in the particular market—in this case the newspaper market. I say with some regret that I fear that it is only too likely to be so. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made the perfectly reasonable point that Rupert Murdoch's conduct is rational market behaviour whether or not we like it. The objective of predatory pricing is to put out of business rivals in the market. That objective could be achieved.
Indeed, there is already evidence that predatory pricing is working towards that objective. Sales of The Independent are now down by 20 per cent. on a year ago, and that loss occurred even before the latest cut in the price of The Times. Since that cut to 20p, the major regional and the Scottish and Welsh newspapers have between them lost some 30,000 daily sales.
I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). We in Britain already have a

much more centralised and homogenised national newspaper industry than any other country in Europe: all the others have much more diverse, regionally based media industries. We already have dominant national newspapers that produce broadly similar editions, from Kent to Caithness. If we were to lose our existing regional press and the Scottish and Welsh newspapers, we would lose one of the last remaining elements of pluralism in our printed media.
The Scotsman, The Glasgow Herald and—this is a studiously politically neutral observation—even The Birmingham Post are part of the richness of their local politics; they contribute to regional political life, and therefore to the pluralism and diversity of British political life. All those newspapers have made losses since the introduction of price cuts by The Times. The problem is that, even if only a relatively modest number of readers desert them—attracted by the new price of The Times—that minority will destablise their finances for all their readers. A 25 per cent. loss of readers might be sufficient to put one or more papers out of business: that would mean the loss of the paper to the 75 per cent. of readers who wanted to continue to read them.
Sir Bryan's third test in regard to predatory pricing related to the intentions of the alleged predator. In this case, the predator's intentions are only too clear. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out—I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—Rupert Murdoch is on record as saying that he expects only the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Times to be in existence at the turn of the century. I fear that that was not simply a neutral, passive observation; I suspect that it is part of a strategy, and that Mr. Murdoch intends to play an active part in achieving the position to which he referred.
Paradoxically, a newspaper proprietor who insists that his editors preach competition is currently practising unfair competition. A proprietor who, through his newspapers, preaches the supreme virtue and value of consumer choice is now acting in a way that is calculated to restrict consumer choice in the newspaper industry.
That brings me to the wider points beyond the narrow issue of whether predatory pricing now takes place in the printed media. They were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who said earlier this evening that he might not speak in the debate; I am very grateful to him for changing his mind, and making some interesting observations based on long study and a deep knowledge of the issue.
Even before the recent cut in the price of the Murdoch papers, Rupert Murdoch controlled newspapers representing one third of both the daily and Sunday circulations in Britain. He also has the controlling interest in the sole satellite service, which is increasingly penetrating our television viewing figures. In terms of markets generally, the threshold that conventionally triggers an inquiry into whether a monopoly is being established is 25 per cent. Rupert Murdoch is already well over that threshold in terms of the printed media industry, and may soon achieve it in terms of an aggregate of the printed media circulation and television viewing figures.
This, however, is not just any market; the media constitute a particularly sensitive market. A free and open society requires free and open media which permit the expression of a diversity of opinion.
That brings me to another problem that acts as a backdrop to this exchange. I mentioned earlier that there are two requirements from our media if we are to have a


healthy democracy. First, we should have a variety of newspapers and, secondly, those papers should contain a diversity of views. There is no diversity of editorial view in the Murdoch press.
It is the same standard line—right-wing and Conservative in political views, intolerant and judgmental in social views—and it is united in a third factor which is a wild enthusiasm for Sky Television. That enthusiasm for Sky is so common and so deeply ingrained in the Murdoch newspapers that the day after he relaunched Sky Television last year produced 12 sq ft in the Murdoch press reporting the relaunch, with no fewer than five separate articles in The Times. I suspect that not all that was entirely the result of the free play of editorial judgment as to the news value of the event.
The question we have to ask is whether we want the market share of that single news corporation to get bigger. That is what is happening. I said earlier that, before the price cuts began, the Murdoch newspapers had one third of the circulation of the dailies and the Sundays. I have to report to the House that, as near as one can identify the figures, before the last cut to 20p in the price of The Times, that figure had increased to 36 per cent.
It is likely, given the momentum of the latest price cuts, that we shall shortly see the circulation of the Murdoch press rise from a third of total circulation to something approaching two fifths. Do we want that expansion and, in particular, do we want that expansion at the expense of other newspapers folding? My answer is an unequivocal no. That answer is also informed by a broad view of the need for a diverse media and of the importance of a diverse media for a healthy democracy.
It is not necessary for the Minister to embrace my prejudice for pluralism within the media as an important ingredient in our democracy. He could agree with my conclusion on the much narrower premise about what is important for fair competition. The Minister has a robust view of the importance of fair competition. He has founded an entire ideological career on the principle that fair competition gives the optimum results in terms of economic performance and consumer choice.
Very well: at this hour of the night, for the purpose of the debate, I shall accept the premise from which the Minister sets out. If that is the basis on which he has founded his ideology, he must be troubled by the behaviour of Rupert Murdoch, particularly in relation to the pricing of The Times, because that is unfair competition and predatory pricing, which is intended to distort the market and to force out of business other newspapers that are seeking to provide a price that genuinely reflects the cost of producing a newspaper.
If the Minister and his colleagues fail to respond to the challenge for free and fair competition, they will be making a mockery of their own free market ideology.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): It is customary on these occasions for the Minister to begin by saying that he is glad to be here to have this opportunity to answer the debate. On today of all days I say that with special feeling.
I listened with interest to the speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House, even that of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who singled me out to chide me for displaying a lack of attention to what

he was saying. I have to admit—he knows this from sitting for many months on the Committee considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—that on occasions when he was speaking my attention did wander.
Fortunately, his speech wandered rather more, so it was possible for me to cut in at a later stage and still pick up the same point. I do not think that I missed anything of importance in what he said. I discovered that, like Wagner's operas, his speeches had sublime moments but somewhat turbid half-hours. Nevertheless, hon. Members of both parties have made important points on what I fully accept is a matter of some importance and general interest.
To begin, it is worth pointing out that Britain has a strong national press. We have 21 national newspapers, including dailies and Sundays and, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, we also have a strong regional press. We therefore have a very lively printed medium. There is, of course, intense competition for sales and advertising revenue.
A feature of recent years has been the increase not only in competition but in diversity. I am a great believer in diversity—I wish that there were more newspapers that were kind to the Government, but I suppose that is rather too much to hope for. In the second half of the 1980s, national newspaper publishers improved their profit and loss accounts through two windfalls.
The first was the end of overmanning, which was associated with the move from Fleet street. Regrettably, I did not notice too much support for that move on the Opposition Benches. I think that that move was one of the major reasons that a newspaper such as The Independent was able to get going in the first place. The end of restrictive practices and the application of new technology meant that the cost of newspaper production was dramatically reduced. I welcome that, because it helps to promote diversity.
The second windfall was the emergence of colour in newspaper advertising. The hon. Member for Livingston neglected to mention the importance of advertising revenue to newspapers as a factor that will have to be taken into account in any attempt to analyse the motives of those who recently indulged in price cutting and the extent to which they seek to make up through advertising revenue the losses made on cover sales. I shall come to that issue a little later.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister's belief in diversity is absolutely sincere, because it fits in with in his other beliefs, but can The Times at 20p seriously be expected to make money without first killing at least one broadsheet and thereby reducing diversity? If the answer is no, is not the Murdoch policy of selling The Times at 20p a clear case of predatory pricing, which reduces diversity? If that is the case, and if the Minister wants diversity, why does he allow Murdoch to adopt that policy?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall not base my remarks on assumptions. Some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments and assertions might be regarded as strong, but they cover exactly the questions that the Director General of Fair Trading will consider before advising me on whether there is scope for using competition legislation to do anything about recent events. I shall deal with that point in some detail in due course, but first I revert to my introductory remarks for a moment.
In 1987, colour advertising in national newspapers was worth only £15.4 million, but in 1991 it was worth £155 million, so the increase has been substantial. Advertising now accounts for 50 per cent. of newspapers' revenue, but, in the face of competition from other media, printed medium publishers are experiencing a decline in advertising revenue, although that may be partly recession-related—it is very difficult to tell.
Copy sales—the other part of national newspapers' revenue—are also under increasing pressure. The circulation of popular dailies and Sundays is down, but the sales of quality titles—at least before the price war began —were up. Between 1980 and 1990, the combined circulation of popular dailies fell by just over 250,000, despite the appearance of the new title Today in 1986. Between 1990 and 1993, sales fell by a further 836,000.
We have witnessed among existing players an intensifying competition for advertising and circulation, and not many want to enter the market where ownership is concentrated. Major groups want to diversify into other areas; broadcasting has featured largely in the debate.
The greatest economic threat, but also in many ways the greatest opportunity, comes from electronic media. No doubt there will be rapid and significant changes in that respect in the years to come. Who knows whether the demand for printed newspapers will survive much longer in its present form, when people have access to news sources by electronic means?
I am no great expert on the subject. No doubt the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and others who have spent a long time working in the production of news and in the publishing world generally are better informed than I, but I have certainly been impressed by the rapidity with which technology has transformed the life of the industry.
Opportunities undreamed of a short time ago are now regarded as commonplace. At this stage, we cannot forecast the dramatic impact that that may have on the important questions of public interest that hon. Members have raised during the debate—especially the diversity of supply of factual and interpretive news. That, however, is a wider question.
Past newspaper competition cases have been mentioned, so it may be worth my while to spend a couple of minutes on some of those, and especially to talk about Mr. Murdoch, as he has been painted as the villain of the piece in the debate, not only in the House but more widely.
When Mr. Murdoch acquired the News of the World, his first newspaper, he did not require consent, because he was not an existing newspaper owner in the United Kingdom. He then acquired The Sun in 1969, having been given permission to do so, when a Labour Government were in charge of competition legislation. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, in 1981 he acquired The Times and the Sunday Times, and in 1987 he acquired Today.
In each of those cases, consent was given without a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry, because the Secretaries of State at the time—that includes not only Conservatives but the Labour Secretary of State in 1969 —were satisfied that the newspaper being taken over was not economic, and that an MMC reference would have jeopardised its existence.
That is a factor that one must bear in mind when thinking about the development of ownership in the industry. Those newspapers were regarded as hopeless loss-makers that would have gone out of business but for intervention—in those cases, intervention by Mr. Murdoch, but no doubt there are other cases.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Just for the record, may I say that there was no dispute about the assertion that the Sunday Times was highly profitable and had a circulation above the trigger level? I do not want to go back over the debate about what happened in 1981, but that is worth saying.

Mr. Hamilton: I am simply trying to sketch in a bit of the background, so that the historians of the future will have the full picture.
In December 1990, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided, on the basis of the information then before him and in accordance with the recommendations of the Director General of Fair Trading, not to refer to the MMC under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 the acquisition by British Satellite Broadcasting of Sky Television, and the acquisition by News International of a 50 per cent. share in British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd.
In May 1993, after a period of public consultation, the Secretary of State gave his consent for the sale of the Observer to The Guardian and Manchester Evening News by Lonrho. In that case, the Secretary of State was satisfied that the Observer was not economic as a going concern and a separate newspaper, and that, if the paper was to continue, the sale should proceed without a reference to the MMC. The same considerations were applied in that case.
In March this year, the Secretary of State, again after public consultation, gave his consent without an MMC inquiry to two separate applications to acquire a controlling interest in Newspaper Publishing plc, the owner of The Independent and The Independent on Sunday. That is the background to the current position on ownership.

Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the background, may I ask a one o'clock in the morning question? Is there any unease—I do not put it higher—among the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that so much of the British press and media is now foreign-owned? There is not only Mr. Black, but Mr. Murdoch and Mr. O'Reilly. I am not pointing a finger at them, but just saying that there is considerable unease among some of my colleagues about the extent of foreign ownership by people who do not have a stake in this country.
Some of us think that the European press should be European-owned. It might be sensible to talk to our European partners and to lay down some regulations, as the Americans do de facto, that the press in Europe should be European-owned.

Mr. Hamilton: Not being a xenophobe, I do not generally consider the nationality of individuals as terribly relevant in competition cases, even for newspapers, for which especially stringent conditions have to be satisfied to preserve media diversity. As the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out, the existence of conditions on nationality in the United States was not a bar to Mr. Murdoch's acquiring significant interests there. I cannot say that I share—

Mr. Robin Cook: He had to become an American.

Mr. Hamilton: That is true, but it did not stop him acquiring the assets that he wanted. The mere change of his nationality would not, I should have thought, have satisfied the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in that case. It is not terribly relevant to the questions that have been the subject of this debate about media diversity. After all, one could have a British Mr. Murdoch, who could behave in exactly the same way. Presumably he would then be subject to exactly the same strictures form the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

Mr. Dalyell: My point is that, if Mr. Murdoch now applied for British nationality, the betting is that he would soon get into great difficulty with his American ownership. He cannot have the best of all worlds.

Mr. Hamilton: We are becoming increasingly Byzantine in the processes of reasoning that we are applying here. I shall content myself with saying that I do not think that nationality goes to the very heart of this debate. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood was much more concerned about what is done with the assets, in whoever's hands they may be. That is what he wants us to address as a Government, particularly in the cases before us today.
The recent background to the current price war is that the Director General of Fair Trading held a preliminary investigation, following a complaint from The Independent that the reduction in the cover price of The Times to 30p constituted predatory pricing. On that occasion, as the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out at some length during his useful speech, the DOFF decided against taking formal action, because he believed, on the basis of the information then available, that the price cut reflected a commercial decision by News International rather than predation.
He commented at the time of his decision:
I am all in favour of price competition, but at times there is a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing.
That has been the subject of the correspondence that the hon. Member for Livingston has had, and of his arguments this evening.
Following the reduction in June of the cover price of The Daily Telegraph from 48p to 30p and the reduction in the price of The Times from 30p to 20p, the hon. Member for Livingston has argued that that fine line has now been crossed. However, that argument assumes that the actions of The Daily Telegraph and The Times are of predatory intent towards The Independent. That argument requires some investigation if it is to be proved. I do not think that these questions are ever clear-cut. Certainly, as such questions depend on defining the intentions of the parties, they are always made subject to interpretation.
After the reduction in The Times' cover price, daily circulation increased to more than 500,000 copies. Of course, the advertising revenue of The Times, or at least its potential for doing so, has increased as a consequence. It is widely believed that the fall in the daily circulation of The Daily Telegraph to below the critical 1 million mark prompted its price cut, in an effort to boost circulation and, of course, to protect the paper's extensive advertising revenue.
It is difficult to be as categoric as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and others have been about what is happening here. Rather than Governments prejudging these issues, the appropriate mechanism for deciding whether there is a case to take further action is for the Director General of Fair

Trading to conduct the investigations that he has done once before and is now doing once again in what may be the different circumstances of the later price cuts.
We have seen a Scottish price war developing more recently. News International's launch of Scotland Today on 18 July prompted similar activity north of the border. Originally, the title was to sell at 20p, but the Daily Mirror reduced its cover price to 10p for launch day; that was immediately matched by Scotland Today. Yesterday, both papers announced that they would continue to maintain the 10p cover price in the meantime.
The biggest selling tabloid is the Scottish Daily Record, which is part of the Mirror Group. Apparently, that remains aloof and continues to sell at 27p. Its record circulation is about 750,000, which exceeds the sales of all the other Scottish tabloids combined.
We have perhaps slightly different conditions in Scotland than in England and Wales, but there are marked differences between different parts of this market, both geographically and in terms of quality or tabloid. The current developments in Scotland are not subject to the current inquiries of the Director General of Fair Trading into broadsheet price reductions, although undoubtedly he is aware of them. As he is statutorily obliged to do, he keeps all markets under review.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Livingston has made representations to to the director general about the position in Scotland, but if he does so, I am sure that the director general will consider them. I am absolutely certain that the director general will read tonight's debate in Hansard when it is produced, and consider extending his inquiries to cover what is happening in Scotland as well. But that is a matter for him; it would be wrong for me to prejudge what he might do, as I am afraid that I do not know.
The Director General of Fair Trading keeps an eye on markets. He receives complaints, he examines the prima facie evidence, he conducts preliminary inquiries to determine whether further action is necessary, he refers cases under the monopolies provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where he believes that that is justified, and he advises the Secretary of State on remedies. At his behest, he monitors any undertakings which might be given or orders made.
The Murdoch press controls about 31 per cent. by sales volume of the newspapers in this country. That matter was investigated as part of the Commission's inquiry which took place last year. At that time, the Commission considered that that scale monopoly—any monopoly of more than 25 per cent. of the market can be investigated by the Commission—did not operate against the public interest. It may be that, in the current circumstances, the Commission would come to a different view, but that is a matter of speculation.
In answering the rather more subjective questions raised in this debate, my problem is that, as the competition Minister, I have legal responsibility, and I must be even-handed in my consideration of questions which might fall to me to decide. If I indicate that I have made my mind up in advance, or that I am partial to one party or another, any decision that I might ultimately make may be made subject to judicial review.
If, for the sake of argument, I were to decide against Murdoch's newspapers, without proper investigation and


without giving all the interested parties the opportunity to participate in that investigatory process, any decision that I made may be overturned by the courts.

Dr. Wright: I understand what the Minister has said about the need not to prejudge and the legal position, but I am not clear whether he is willing to agree with every hon. Member who has spoken, and with almost everyone else outside, who argue that, if there was doubt about the intentions behind the first move by The Times last year, there can be no doubt about the intentions behinds its second move, this year. As the Minister has already said, that thin line has now been conspicuously crossed. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is now prima facie evidence of predatory pricing, which certainly warrants thorough investigation?

Mr. Hamilton: It certainly warrants investigation by the Director General of Fair Trading to find out whether that evidence exists. That is exactly what is happening now. The hon. Gentleman is stating as a matter of opinion what he thinks is the intention behind the Murdoch policy on the pricing of The Times. He does not have any facts on which base that assertion; he is interpreting what has happened and applying his judgment to the reasons for that.
There is bound to be an element of subjectivity in coming to a conclusion, but I would much prefer to wait until I am advised by the Director General of Fair Trading, who will have made preliminary inquiries in the normal way. He will take a view on perhaps a rather more informed basis than hon. Members are able to take, because they will not have had the opportunity to quiz those who should give an opinion if we are to decide on a fair and rational basis. We must remember that we owe even to Mr. Murdoch the same fairness that anyone else would expect under our competition legislation in the exercise of the discretionary powers of Ministers.
I will not prejudge the issues this evening. The hon. Member for Livingston said that I am known for having a robust view of competition, which is true. I believe that competitive markets are not only the means by which we produce wealth, but the healthiest way for democratic societies to be sustained. It is no accident that diversity of opinion vanished from those countries where the economy was placed under state control and subject to political direction. I have a prejudice in favour of diversity, which is sustained by competitive conditions in the market.
I will start a general discourse tonight on competition policy and the circumstances in which I might decide that a scale monopoly or a merger might be against the public interest. That could not be decided simply on grounds of market share, because there are sometimes other considerations that should also be taken into account—for example, the threat of competition from those who may not be in the market at the moment but who might be able to enter it. If it is easy to enter a market, even a single monopoly producer may not be secure in his monopoly. The more precarious his position, the less the threat to the public.
Things are different in the case of newspapers; that is why different provisions apply to newspaper mergers

under the Fair Trading Act 1973. We do not want to encourage monopolies, but to encourage and sustain diversity of supply.
On 30 June, the Director General of Fair Trading announced that he would conduct inquiries into the recent cuts in the cover price of The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Once he has completed his inquiries, he will advise Ministers whether further action is warranted under the competition legislation. I cannot speculate on the outcome of those inquiries, nor can I announce to the House how quickly he will complete them.
I can only say that my experience of Bryan Carsberg, in the time that he has been in the Office of Fair Trading, tells me that he will conduct the inquiries as quickly as is consistent with the conscientious and fair carrying out of his responsibilities under the relevant legislation. The investigation that was held in the autumn of 1993 was carried expeditiously, and I have no reason to believe that the coming one will be carried out in any different way.
As for the points made, especially by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), about cross-media considerations, I am inhibited from making much of a substantive reply because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is conducting a review of the cross-media ownership rules.
An announcement of the outcome of that review, including any legislative implications that might flow, is likely to come about in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait for the Government's views to be made clear. Unless there is another reshuffle and I am luckier that I was today, it will not fall to me to answer the hon. Gentleman.
I think that we have had a useful debate, even though it has not been easy for me to respond in a meaningful way to the contributions of Opposition Members.

Mr. MacShane: We appreciate what the Minister has said about the inquiry. I would like him to tell the House whether he would personally regret in six or 12 months' time—this is not really a hypothetical question—the ending of the printing of The Independent as a result of the price war. Will the hon. Gentleman make a personal statement?

Mr. Hamilton: I am not sure that it would tell the hon. Gentleman very much, if I were to venture an opinion upon that. I would rather have more newspapers than fewer in an ideal world. That is not the question that I shall be asked if issues are raised under competition legislation. I shall have to make a decision in a particular case.
In the earlier takeovers that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the then Secretary of State had to come to a decision on whether what was proposed was desirable in the public interest. That would apply to the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act as much as to the merger provisions. I cannot give a meaningful answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
As I have said, I think that this has been a useful debate. I am sure that the Director General of Fair Trading will have his attention drawn to it and that he will take the views of Members, as expressed in the debate, into account in coming to a decision and advising me accordingly. I am sure that hon. Members will not have to wait very long for that to come about.

Orders of the Day — Latin America

Mr. Ray Whitney: I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Minister of State, on the Government Front Bench. I am sad, of course, that this is his last appearance in his current persona. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well in his new pastures in the Treasury. We look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) joining us in our deliberations on foreign affairs in general and on Latin American affairs in particular. I hope that he will have a long, fruitful and educative tenure in his new office.
All of us—certainly those of us who are members of the Latin America group—are grateful for the opportunity to air our concerns, interests and points of view once more. It is a happy event that this is the seventh debate of this nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who is the chief instigator of our group, deserves great congratulations on forming what has become a national—nay, even an international—institution. He keeps us up to the mark.
Over the past six years, most hon. Members have taken a bullish and positive view of what has been happening in Latin America: its awakening from the past and what was known as the "lost decade" of the 1980s; the casting off of the often unjustified image of unstable regimes and isolated protectionism; and the worrisome fact that Latin American countries were not as full members of the international community as we would wish them to be. All is not yet perfect; would that it were, in this country or any part of the world. Some of the problems in Latin America will doubtless be raised by other speakers in the debate, but most hon. Members have welcomed the significant progress made in the past five years or so.
The democratic process has taken a firm hold. We can all point to areas where it has had setbacks, but, with the sad exception of Cuba, the peaceful change of political power is now the norm in Latin America. It has been particularly noticeable that those democratic Governments have taken courageous decisions in the economic sphere. Even those of us in a deeply rooted, established democracy such as Britain's know that it requires political courage to take unpopular decisions.
Conservative Members have welcomed the correction of budget deficits, bringing under control the massive inflation that was a feature of the past—in some cases, it is still a feature—the reduction of protectionism and the role of the state, the promotion of free market ideas and the privatisation of the economy. As those developments are the leitmotifs of virtually all states that are moving forward in the world, as we saw most recently at the G7 summit in Naples, they are greatly to be welcomed in Latin America.
That process continues in nearly all the countries of that hemisphere. Some signs, however, give cause for concern. Those who are friends of Latin America should take note of them and, where necessary and possible, our Governments should take appropriate action to collaborate with the Governments of Latin America to ensure that those negative tendencies are checked and not allowed to damage or reverse the improvements that have been so welcomed.
The improved political position and economic situation in recent years has resulted in substantial capital inflows of

some $60 billion a year, until recent months. The extent of that capital has funded the current account imbalances, and in many countries—although not all—it has given a kick start to economic development.
However, there are signs that the level of those capital inflows is beginning to diminish. The temptation for capital to move to, or remain in, the industrialised world is increasing. In February, the United States Federal Reserve increased its interest rates, and that has significantly checked US dollar inflows into Latin America. As the west European countries, led by the United Kingdom, come out of recession, the demands on capital in our own regions may have a negative effect on those capital inflows in Latin American countries. In addition, there is the rival attraction of the rapidly developing countries of Asia.
Some observers are worried that there will be another of the boom and bust cycles that have been a feature of the development of Latin American countries. Most observers estimate that there have been five such cycles since the 1820s. I believe that it is possible to ensure that we are not in another such cycle, because fundamental improvements have been made. The capital now on the whole goes, not to Governments, but to private companies—well-founded corporations, which are soundly based and exist to make a living in the marketplace. The fiscal disciplines in most Latin American countries are much stronger, and the mobility of capital and of labour are much improved.
The fundamental wealth of Latin American countries, specifically in raw materials and energy resources, is great, and can certainly continue to be developed for the benefit of the people of those countries.
However, among the negative factors in those difficult equations is the continuing low labour productivity in most —although not all—industrial sectors in Latin America. The low competitiveness of their exports is set against the great demand that is burgeoning for imports, and that is leading to trade deficits.
Another factor that causes considerable worry to all of us is the degree of wealth inequality that exists, arid possibly is growing, in some Latin American countries. I came across one estimate by Mr. Alejandro Foxley, a former Finance Minister of Chile, who said that one of the crucial differences between Asian and Latin American countries rests precisely in that area of wealth inequality. He calculated that, in Asian countries, the richest fifth of society were between five and 10 times wealthier than the bottom fifth, whereas in Chile, that ratio was 12, in Argentina, 16, and in Mexico, as high as 27.
Obviously, the political significance of such inequalities as that are considerable, and could have a serious political impact. They could strongly inhibit the courageous moves that are being, and continue to be, taken to develop free markets, to let the private sector carry the economies forward. As we in this country well understand, those moves carry political, social and economic tensions. If those inequalities in wealth are allowed to get out of hand, the consequences could be serious.
The significance of the regional groups is important and needs considerably better handling than we have so far achieved in the European Union. We welcome the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement and Mercosur, the various bilateral relationships and the general reduction of tariff barriers. But it is important that those blocks do not develop into ring-fenced hostile trading blocks, with each one acting against the other.
We in Britain, particularly in the Conservative party, have always stressed that an important contribution that we have to make in the European Union is to ensure that the danger of Fortress Europe does not materialise. Our friends in the Latin American countries have the same responsibilities, of which they are aware. There are great opportunities, particularly for the European Union and Mercosur, to develop links. That is already happening, and I urge the Government to continue to concentrate on that issue.
Having made a macro-case, I shall now make a micro-point. One part of our trade with Latin America involves Scotch whisky—a significant and increasingly important export from Britain to Latin American countries. Venezuela is only just behind Japan as the fifth most valuable export market for Scotch, with exports last year worth £83 million.
There are concerns that in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay—where together the markets were worth more than £70 million in 1993—Scotch whisky exports face severe fiscal discrimination. In Mexico, where Scotch whisky exports earned £33 million last year, the geographical description of Scotch whisky is neither recognised nor protected. That is a sphere where Her Majesty's Government should ensure that they work hard to correct what is clearly an unfair position.
There are two other areas where Her Majesty's Government should continue to develop and improve their performance in relation to Latin America. The first involves the teaching of the Spanish language, which comes a poor second to French—the first foreign language taught in British schools. I am well aware of the practical difficulties relating to the availability of teachers as well as a number of other factors, but the teaching of Spanish should be a high priority with the Department for Education. A most welcome development over the past year has been the increasing number of ministerial-level visits by British Ministers and other political leaders to Latin American countries. The high number of inward visits of Latin American political figures into this country is also most welcome. I hope that that development will continue.
My final plea to the Minister is that he and his colleagues should reconsider a point that a number of us have made on many occasions, both in the Chamber and in correspondence. There should be another Government-sponsored conference on Latin America. The last such conference was, I believe, held in 1972. It is high time that another conference was staged, not only to bring to the notice of business men on both sides the opportunities available, but to highlight our growing political links as Latin American countries take an increasingly international role in the United Nations' activities and a number of other areas. Our cultural and historical links with Latin American countries are also long-standing.
All those matters are worthy of great attention. I hope that the new Minister of State at the Foreign Office, together with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry, will take that on board. Britain has a long and distinguished record of links with Latin American countries. Over the last generation, those links have been allowed to fade away considerably—but not, I am glad to say, to disappear

entirely. They have been diminished and weakened. It must be in our interests, in the interests of all those whom we represent in the House and, I venture to suggest, in the interests of the Latin American countries that Britain, both nationally and through the leadership we can offer many of our partners in the European Union, should give a new charge of energy and enthusiasm to our links with Latin America. I very much look forward to my right hon. and hon. Friends leading us in that direction.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate is a welcome annual event. Although it is 1 o'clock in the morning here, it is only 8 o'clock in the evening in most of South America. Perhaps people there can listen to this debate live and at a reasonable hour, just as we were able to watch the World Cup at a reasonable hour.
This is an important debate. Indeed, it is important that we have this sort of discussion. What divides Labour Members and the Conservative Members who introduce this debate in most years is that they believe that democracy equals a free market economy equals privatisation equals freedom for all people, whereas we are sceptical about that point of view.
We stress the way in which the imbalances between rich and poor in most of South America have actually widened and are still widening. Absolute poverty is becoming worse. The degree of rampant urbanisation, with people moving into shanty towns, is truly frightening to perceive.
The issue that has arisen during the past year has been the desire of millions of ordinary people throughout the whole of Latin America to live in a society where their vote counts for something, where they do not have to live in fear of the military, where the police are under some form of democratic control, and where their children will enjoy an available health service and will grow up able to go to school, have an education and get some meaningful job at the end of that.
Those engaged in agriculture want to get reasonable prices for their crops. There is not much point in well-meaning politicians in western Europe and North America lecturing farmers in South America and telling them that they should not grow crops that are eventually used for hard drugs that destroy the very lifeblood of children and young people on the streets of our cities, when they are paid such appallingly low prices for maize and other crops. There is a connection between the two.
The economic event of the past year has been the establishment of the North American Free Trade Area. There will be problems for much of Latin America if it is to be cut off from natural trading with North America by the growth of NAFTA. The idea of a barrier south of Mexico through which trade with the rest of South America cannot necessarily pass contains within it the seeds of the most enormous conflicts, as does the attitude of the European Community and a number of other countries.
The signing of the GATT treaty is presented as a kind of all-winners situation, but many of believe that the poorest in the poor countries will suffer as a result because much of that treaty is designed around the needs of multinational capital rather than for social improvement and environmental protection.
It would not be right to continue the debate without at least mentioning the horrors of what is happening in Haiti,


where a democratically elected President was overthrown by the military. By whatever means, if President Aristide is restored to power, he will not be able to govern and the country will be permanently unstable until the legacy of the Duvaliers, their secret police and the fear factor is removed.
The tragedy and horror for the people on Haiti, be they those living in fear of the secret police in their own country, or those dying on the high seas as they try to escape to safety, will continue for a long time. It is to the shame of many that many countries were happy to go along with the Duvaliers' regime through aid, recognition and so on down the years.
During the past year, the most dramatic events in much of the region have been in Mexico, with the Zapatista uprising in the south. That was seen as an outrageous event by many in the world community, who simply did not understand the degree of impoverishment in many parts of Mexico. When the Zapatista National Liberation Army, the EZLN, occupied San Cristobal de las Casas and a number of other towns in the Chiapas region, it issued a statement which said:
As free men and women we are aware that the war we are declaring is a last but just resort. The dictators have been waging an undeclared and genocidal war against our peoples for many years, wherefore we urge your full participation in support of the Mexican people and their struggle for work, land, housing, food, health, education, independence and freedom, democracy, justic and peace. We shall not cease our struggle until we see these basic demands of our people met, forming the government of our free and democratic country.
The report from which I am quoting goes on to point out that, in the Chiapas states, 66 per cent. of households lack electricity, 71 per cent. of children over the age of 14 are unable to go to school, they are fourth from the bottom among Mexican states in the percentage of households with access to running water and sewers, and the mortality rate is 94 per 1,000 live births. That is in a country that was being described by the World bank and others as on the road to economic success. It is hardly surprising that those things happened. It is interesting that, in later opinion polls throughout Mexico, what the EZLN had done in that region was supported by 61 per cent. of the popultion.
The horrors of what is happening in Mexico as a direct result of the World bank's intervention during the debt crisis of the early 1980s and now the North American Free Trade Agreement will not go away in a hurry and it might well break the stranglehold of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional on politics in Mexico. I hope that the British Government will support the sending of independent observers to watch the presidential and congressional elections in Mexico this year. It is essential that those involved in those elections understand that people from outside are prepared to watch what is going on.
I also want to draw attention to what has been going on in central America during the past year. There have been significant changes and earlier this this year a large number of hon. Members signed an early-day motion looking forward to the restoration of human rights and proper judical processes in Honduras. It was important to do that. It is significant that, on 13 April, the new President Reina of Honduras said:
International human rights organisations have perceived that there could be threats to my government and they have denounced that situation … to prevent these threats being realised.

That is a cry from the heart for many within the central American region where some democracy has been restored, as in the case of Honduras.
There is still fear of paramilitary organisations and of the military as those Governments try to uncover human rights abuses. Unmarked graves have been discovered, people have disappeared and what may or may not have happened to them has come to light. The military is often virtually off the hook and able to do much as it pleases.
Although elections have taken place in El Salvador and the horrors of the civil war there have ended—hopefully for good, but perhaps only temporarily—one must question the policy followed by the United States in pouring vast amounts of military aid into El Salvador for a war that could not be won, to protect an elite trying to hang on to their power and wealth. The new Government have pledged themselves to work with the Opposition and other parties, but it is a matter of concern that President Caldersón Sol of the ARENA party was close to Roberto D'Aubuisson, who was closely involved with the death squads during the horrors of the civil war.
There is an economic base to many such conflicts, arising from the desire of the poorest people to enjoy a decent standard of living and the desire of the wealthy and powerful to hang on to their wealth and power at all costs. Traditionally, the US has supported the wealthy and powerful against the poor in that region.
In previous debates, I have often asked about Chile. Things have changed enormously there in the past few years. The second democratic elections will be held this year, and I was among the people who met a parliamentary delegation from Chile that came to Britain last week.
For all that, I find it astonishing that Chile's head of armed forces is General Pinochet, who was responsible for the deaths of at least 50,000 people in Chile. He seems to travel around the world with impunity, aided and abetted by the British Government in entering this country using false names and false passports, to buy arms here. It is disgraceful that the Government are prepared to share in such duplicity organised by the Chilean military, led by General Pinochet. He is still on his arms-buying excursions, and flexes his muscles to demonstrate what a powerful person he is in Chile.
I had the privilege of chairing a huge meeting in Manchester last month which brought together speakers from different parts of the world to examine the new world economic order and the problems that it is creating. One speaker was Marco Aurelio Garcia, international secretary of the Workers party of Brazil. He also attended a meeting in the House, and displayed an impressive grasp of world affairs.
His description of his party's programme and its hopes of winning elections later this year gives me great encouragement. He pointed out that, for all the facade and his country's brilliant success at football and wonderful cultural traditions, enormous poverty is suffered by many Brazilians. It was shown in a TV programme about Brazilian football broadcast on Tuesday, directed by Roberto Mardo.
Seventy million people in Brazil are excluded from its economy and a normal life. They have a twilight existence, living hand to mouth by scavenging, begging, prostitution and drugs. The Government elected later this year will have to confront those problems. They will be elected with a mandate to change, spread wealth, and bring education, housing and employment to the masses.
All those aims are highly laudable. They would be difficult to achieve in any society in any circumstances, and well nigh impossible if the world community, through its financial institutions, continues the stranglehold on Latin America economies of the debt repayment system and underpricing of basic commodities.
We have, I hope, a humanitarian interest in the standard of living of ordinary people throughout the latin American continent, but we also have a vested interest, as does every citizen of the globe, in protecting the environment of the planet. The economic system that is being imposed on the poorest countries is one that quite deliberately damages the environment. There is not much point in lecturing people to defend their rain forest if we tell them at the same time that the only way out of their economic problems is to increase the planting of crops for export, knowing full well that that will be done on areas which were formerly covered with rain forest.
There are many countries and many areas in Latin America on which one could spend a great deal of time, but unfortunately the time allowed for the debate is fairly limited.
The issue of human rights and the image that is presented on our screens of the war against drugs is very real. I have no time for hard drugs in any way. Indeed, I see the horrors of their effects on young people in my community when they become involved in taking them. It seems to me that something is thoroughly wrong when the poorest people in Latin America are growing the ingredients that eventually turn up as hard drugs on the streets of European and north American cities, causing a cancer and a poison in societies at both ends.
Somewhere along the line, unnamed faceless people living in tax havens are making vast profits from that, and are laundering drug money all over the place. I certainly would not want to have any truck with those people.
We must also recognise that, in the facade of the war against drugs, in countries such as Colombia, some totally vile abuses of human rights are going on. The number of political killings in Colombia and the political violence there is truly frightening.
I have in front of me a copy of a paper from the US Committee for Refugees entitled "Feeding the Tiger: Colombia's Internally Displaced People". It contains a graph that has three factors: political assassinations, disappearances, and deaths in combat. From it, one can see that the figures are fairly static from 1970 to 1980, with a bit of a blip around 1977. From 1980 onwards, there was a massive increase in the number of political assassinations —up to 3,000 a year in the late 1980s, settling down to some 2,000 a year currently. Disappearances are rising fairly steadily, and deaths in combat are rising very rapidly indeed. Those figures represent the people who are killed in Colombia.
There are many complex reasons why people are killed in Colombia. Other figures show that, in 1988, 2,738 political, or presumed political, assassinations and 210 disappearances were recorded. In 1992, 2,315 political, or presumed political, assassinations and 237 disappearances were recorded. In addition, 1,801 assassinations with a possible motive of social cleansing were recorded. Those figures are truly frightening, whichever way one cares to look at them.
When one starts to look at what is going on there, one finds that British Gas, a privatised utility in this country, is well placed to lead a multi-billion pound contract to pipe Colombian natural gas throughout the capital—and making a great deal of money at the same time. When Amnesty International produced a very thorough report on human rights in Colombia, it met a strong riposte from both the Colombian Government and the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who was a junior Minister at the Foreign Office.
David Bull, director of Amnesty International, wrote in The Guardian shortly after:
The outrage of the Colombian authorities at our recent adverts in the British press is matched by our bewilderment. As head of the Colombian Administrative Security Department (DAS). Dr Fernando Brito must be aware that there is no such international court or forum to which he could "sue" Amnesty International"—
that was after a threat to sue Amnesty International. Mr. Bull went on to say that he would
welcome the opportunity to have its evidence on human rights violations presented and tested before any independent body.
The Amnesty International report, entitled "Colombia —The human rights movement under siege", catalogues the problems encountered by people who have stood up for human and social rights in the country. Trade unionists have been assassinated; those who have stood up for the land rights of the landless have died as a result; and the constitution grants impunity to many of those responsible for the abuses.
Summarising recent reports on the situation in Colombia, the Inter-congregational Commission of Justice and Peace quoted these words from Amnesty International's report:
Successive Colombian governments have largely escaped international criticism because of a skilful mix of political initiatives, public relations campaigns and the support, in the international arena, of powerful allies for whom Colombia's strategic and economic significance is of far more importance than its human rights record".
The British Government say that they are keen to increase the amount of trade with and inward investment in Latin America—interestingly, by a number of newly privatised utilities from this country—in order to make considerable profits. In Colombia, there is not just a battle between the drugs barons, but a battle against those who are standing up for human rights. Trade union leaders, social leaders, activists and others who want housing and schools for their children are being assassinated.
The British Government are also providing the military with logistical and intelligence support—as is the United States—in the guise of a war against drugs. Many in Colombia suspect that the intelligence system is being used to monitor the activities of those who are standing up for the social progress to which I have referred.
Several reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the current situation. The armed forces must act within the law, and the growth in the paramilitary forces must be not just checked but reduced; there is a great deal of illegal paramilitary action. Links between the army and the paramilitaries are suspected, and it is thought that anti-terrorist legislation is frequently used to prevent people from taking part in social protests. There are few signs that those who are guilty of these appalling atrocities are being brought to book.
I hope that the British Government will be prepared not only to recognise the existence of serious human rights violations in Colombia, but to support monitoring


exercises and human rights initiatives. I hope that their foreign policy initiative will stress human rights objectives rather than purely economic ones.
We are discussing a continent of wondrous diversity, beauty and potential. Many of its people live in terrible poverty, and much of its cultural heritage is under threat in numerous ways. We must view the world as a whole—its trading patterns, its ecology and its sustainability. I think that much of the treatment of the poorest people in South America is deplorable; we ought to participate in the development of a foreign and trading policy that takes a very different attitude to the region and its problems.
What has happened in Mexico, and what is happening in Haiti and to the poorest people in Brazil and Colombia, will be replicated throughout the continent. Although we cannot solve all the problems from here, we can at least recognise them and not always be seen to be supporeing the rich and powerful against the poor and landless.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), the distinguished chairman of the British-Latin American parliamentary group, on opening the seventh consecutive summer Adjournment debate on the important subject of this country's relations with Latin America. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) to his last outing as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, responsible for relations with Latin America, and congratulate him on his appointment as Paymaster General.
This has been another good year for Latin America, and in particular for Britain's relations with it. A glittering array of Her Majesty's Ministers has travelled across Latin America, which is good for our relations; it is also good for Ministers to absorb an appreciation of Latin America and take it into the heart of Government. It is a collection of countries with an educated elite that can match that of countries anywhere in the world. It is a continent with representative democracy now firmly re-established, except in the shameful cases of Cuba and Haiti, and it is a continent with growing economies. I hope that the Prime Minister will build on his recent visit to Colombia and to Brazil—the first such visit by a serving British Prime Minister—and I hope that he will build into his programme visits to other Latin American republics.
Only two weeks ago we welcomed President Wasmosy to the House and Celso Amorim, the Foreign Minister of Brazil is here now. In fact, only last Tuesday he witnessed from the Gallery the interesting spectacle of Prime Minister's Question Time. In London today we have also seen Ernesto Samper, the President-elect of Colombia. He spoke to us here, in the mother of Parliaments. This year, the Inter-Parliamentary Union has welcomed parliamentary delegations from Cuba and from Chile, with whom we have had interesting discussions.
Last year I spoke at length about Brazil, which covers one third of the area of Latin America. It is the ninth largest economy in the world and has an annual gross domestic product of $500 billion, which is three times that of Mexico and twice that of Belgium. The economy of the state of São Paulo in Brazil is one and a half times that of the entire Argentine republic. That puts that magnificent country into context.
Brazil is currently going through a major transformation through its economic stabilisation programme which was launched by the then Minister of Finance, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. It has already switched from the cruzeiro real currency, which only last April was depreciating at the mind-boggling rate of 42 per cent. per month, through the URV index to the new currency, the real, which was launched on 1 July. By the use of strong monetary control, high interest rates and supportive measures it has stopped inflation in its tracks. The new currency has appreciated gently against the United States dollar in the weeks since its introduction.
None of that can do any harm to the election prospects of Senator Cardoso who has become a strong presidential candidate for the elections due on 3 October. Nevertheless, he has a herculean task to outstrip the front runner, Luis Inacio da Silva, well known as Lula, the leader of the Workers party, to whom the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred.
Brazil may be proud of its recent democratic record. It reverted from military dictatorship to democracy without bloodshed. It went through the disillusion and trauma of seeing its first renewed democratically elected president, Fernando Collor de Mello, driven from office accused of corruption. It has seen its interim and current president, Itamar Franco, weather a personal scandal. It has been through all that without breaching its constitutional procedure. That is a proud record and we in the House must await the new president who takes office at the beginning of 1995.
I should like to draw the House's attention to developments in Argentina. We must lift up our eyes above the hurt brought about by that tragic piece of fratricide, the south Atlantic conflict of 1982. Argentina is a country akin to sleeping beauty. It has been kissed by the prince of democracy and is emerging from a 50-year slumber. I ask the House to cast its mind back to the 1920s and 1930s. Argentina was then interlocked with the economies of the British empire. British companies ran the public utilities, the meat trade and the banking. The Argentines exported their agricultural produce to Britain and we, in turn, exported our industrialised products to Argentina. It was akin to one of the great dominions. However, it was our actual great dominions—Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa—which saw them as competitors and invoked imperial preference against them at the Ottawa imperial conference in 1932.
The shock of that event was like that experienced by a child rejected by his parent. It led to the 50-year trauma from which Argentina is only now emerging. It is ironic that Britain has also played a major part in that emergence by defeating the military dictatorship in the south Atlantic conflict. The 50-year trauma—mob Peronism followed by military dictatorship—had a devastating effect on Argentina, taking it from being the emerging power alongside Canada in the 1930s to the self-deprecating shadow of the early 1980s.
What a great humiliation that that potentially great country should have had the self-image of a third-world country. Not for nothing did Argentines joke bitterly that God had given Argentina its agriculture, its wine and its oil but that, to redress the balance for those riches, God had given it the Argentines themselves. It was a loss of confidence on a grand scale.
The earthquake of the Falklands conflict, the discrediting of the military and the restoration of


democracy did not complete the renaissance. President Alfonsin, the first democratically elected president, began the task, but it has been the unlikely figure of President Menem who has seen it through to fruition. Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you remember presidential candidate Menem —the Peronist candidate—with his byzantine appearance and bellicose utterances, especially those against the Falkland Islands?
Who could have foreseen what that man would achieve? He has transformed Argentina—inflation has fallen, the deficit is being reined in, the vast inefficient nationalised industries have been privatised, foreign investment and expertise have been brought in, and the British utility companies have reinvested. Certainly, Argentine industry, which is old-fashioned and inefficient, needs investment and renewal, and there are many opportunities for this country in that process.
The Foreign Minister, Guido di Tella, is a highly impressive gentleman of world class. He has launched his "charm offensive", which is helping the wounds of conflict to heal. The House should not forget that Argentina's wounds are still painful to the touch. I hope that there will be a steady building of bridges between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, and the recent Anglo-Argentine conference in Mendoza attended by some hon. Members and others will have done much to help that process.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right, however, to stress our dedication to self-determination and the fact that that dedication would lead us to defend the Falkland Islands should it be necessary. It is no kindness to Argentina to give it the impression that we would not back the democratic rights of the Falkland Islands should it be necessary to do so. That message should be clear.
Incidentally, the same message should be sent to Guatemala in relation to Belize—this country and, I believe, the world community, would, through the United Nations, stand behind the independence and sovereignty of Belize.
Argentina has got rid of violence—the violence to the "disappeared", the violence of abductions and that of left-wing terrorists has gone. How tragic that, earlier this month, we witnessed the bomb explosion at the headquarters of the Argentine Jewish community, in which 22 people lost their lives and 140 were injured. Apparently, the perpetrators are believed to be an Iranian Hezbollah terror team. I am sure that the House will echo the message of sympathy and support that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent to the Foreign Ministers of Argentina and Israel.
Argentina is again taking its rightful place in the world community. Its navy participated alongside ours in the campaign to liberate Kuwait, and its armed forces are shoulder to shoulder with ours on the green line in Cyprus. Argentine is again a valued trading and investment player and a major companion on the world stage, and we must give it our attention.
Recent months have seen the drama of the GATT agreement and the saga of the European Union agriculture and trading developments. The lesson to be learnt is that the United Kingdom and Latin America are natural allies. This country's fight for free and open trade marks us out as

the Latin American countries' natural ally in Europe. Our friendships go back to the days of Canning, and of their independence struggles. Our interests run in parallel.
We cannot ask the Latin American countries—or, indeed, other developing countries—to return to democracy and to have sound economies and free trade, and then put up barriers against them. They must earn their way in the world, and for that they need markets in which to sell their goods, to earn foreign exchange with which in turn to buy our goods.
For that reason I alert the House to the growing phenomenon of protectionism masquerading as allegations of social dumping. Allegations of exploitation involving child labour, slavery, prison labour or dangerous working conditions are made against developing countries, and those are used as a justification for trade barriers. Clearly the House is against the misuse of prison labour, which we see taking place in the communist republic of China. Equally, child labour, as seen in far too many Asiatic countries, is abhorrent. However, we should not allow the allegations to cloud our judgment.
Those allegations come mainly from three sources. The first source is the extreme left, who blame all injustices on the international trading system; the second is producer interests in the industrialised world, including the trade unions; the third consists of the advocates of regional blocs, such as Sir James Goldsmith. Those are indeed strange bedfellows.
I believe that the greatest threat to our relations with Latin America would come from an introverted European Union, and the Latin American republics consequently looking inwards to a Mercosul and other sub-regional organisations, and then to an extended North American Free Trade Agreement. Such an extension of NAFTA would constitute a self-imposed subjection to a belated Monroe doctrine.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that one of the many failings of the GATT deal is the fact that there is nothing in it about the rights of workers, or about protection against child labour? If we are serious about opposing the use of penal labour or child labour anywhere, would it not be helpful if such provisions had been written on the face of the GATT treaty?

Mr. Arnold: If such provisions were written in, they would hamstring many of the developing economies. It is all very well for us to parade our social consciences, but it is quite another thing if those countries cannot compete in the world. We must never forget that.
We must guard against the advocates of social dumping allegations, such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North and also against the possibility of their winning their case in the new World Trade Organisation. Batteries of European Commission lawyers and experts are already descending on Geneva, using alleged cases of child labour, which they then take from the particular to the general, as an excuse for banning third world exports. The United States is also likely to behave in the same way.
That is a looming challenge that we must fight. Fortunately, we have an ally in Sir Leon Brittan as European Trade Commissioner. He has specifically opposed any action against social dumping when exporters have owed their advantage purely to low wages and social costs.
I shall make a few specific bids to my hon. Friend the Minister. I strongly support the call from our hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, on behalf of the British Latin American parliamentary group, for a Government-sponsored conference in London on Latin America. That can only heighten the profile of that important part of the world.
I also support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe for greater emphasis on the teaching of the Spanish language to our young people. Clearly, with a multiplicity of countries in Latin America and elsewhere speaking Spanish, the language is important, certainly by contrast with French and even more so by contrast with German. I also put in a plea for the Portuguese language and I ask that we ensure that the setting of a GCSE examination in this language is continued.
I ask that we thoroughly review the support that we give, through the British Council, to the network of the Cultura Inglesa in so many Latin American countries. Those institutions are doing sterling work in teaching the Queen's English and British culture to Latin American young people. That does much to strengthen the cultural ties between our country and Latin America.
I am grateful for the opportunity for this seventh debate on Latin America. It is vital and we are making great progress to rekindle the warm relationship between this country and Latin America.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I, too, am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) secured what is, by now, a traditional end of Session debate on Latin America. I am sad that this will be my last such debate before I transfer from the Foreign Office to a new job in the Treasury. However, I hope that it will not be the end of my relations with Latin America.
I have enormously enjoyed my work with Latin America over the past 14 months. It is a continent of immense dynamism, potential and diversity. I have been treated with great kindness by the ambassadors of the countries represented here and, indeed, by their Governments in many dealings with them, including when I have had to deal with some difficult and controversial matters.
In all cases, I have received courtesy and understanding, and I have always admired the professionalism with which those countries conduct their relations with us through their ambassadors and the staff in London.
There has been a lively traffic of visits in both directions over the past year. This week, to take an example, we have received here the President-elect of Colombia, Mr. Samper, and the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Mr. Amorim. Indeed, I dined with him shortly before this debate started. Both during that dinner and in the more formal parts of their visits, we carried forward our traditionally close relations with those two countries. Earlier this month, we welcomed President Wasmosy of Paraguay. There, too, we found a high degree of common accord.
It is worth noting that, in 1989, nine British Ministers visited Latin America. Last year, that figure had risen to 22 visits. We are not just continuing, but developing and enriching the ministerial relationship between our two continents.
I pay tribute here to the role of Canning house in this respect. It is always a privilege for me to address audiences there and to listen to questions, points and criticisms from audiences assembled by Canning house. I know that visitors always welcome the opportunity to make contact with British business men, academics and other politicians. As for the calls for a conference on Latin America, I should not tie the hands of my successor, but I hope that he will read this debate and the particular request made by my hon. Friends.
Relations are also helped specifically by the interest taken in Latin American affairs by hon. Members. Those hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are known for their continuing interest in the issues. That fact impresses visitors who come here; they like to know that hon. Members take not only an occasional but a continuing interest in developments in Latin America. They know well that that implies not only applause for the successes of the continent but scrutiny of its problems.
Human rights are not a taboo issue. Provided the discussion is informed and constructive, it enriches the international debate that human relations issues and allegations should be raised and discussed. In that context, I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We all respect the knowledge that he brings to bear on the subject, as well as his genuine concerns about human rights abuses, which we recognise still occur in at least some of the countries concerned.
My final point is that, if hon. Members are considering a visit to Latin America during the recess or at any other time, I hope that they will let the Foreign Office know, so that our post out there can help to make their visits a success. Although I am leaving the Department, I intend to visit Latin America in August and September to complete a little business and to have a holiday in the region, which is a legitimate pursuit. I hope that the last 14 months have at least earned me a little recreation in the area, as well as a little more work.
The matter of trade was raised several times in the debate.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves the subject of human rights, I raised some specific points relating to Colombia. I asked whether the British Government are prepared to support human rights initiatives and examine seriously the situation in Colombia, because one gets the impression, from the outside, so to speak, that the Foreign Office is more interested in inward investment in Colombia than it is in looking at the human rights problems which undoubtedly are growing in Colombia, not diminishing.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I intend to come back to the issue of human rights later in my remarks. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when President Gaviria visited us last year, when I visited Colombia and, indeed, when President-elect Samper came here this week, human rights issues were raised; our concerns were made clear to the Government of Colombia and those individuals. If I may, I shall respond later on what I consider to be a particularly important aspect of human rights in Latin America.
As for trade, hon. Members will be pleased to know that our exports to the region increased by some 27 per cent. to some £1.7 billion in 1993, and there is evidence that,


during the early months of this year, they increased by a further 17 per cent. Despite that, our market share remains disappointingly low, and we are working to correct that.
British industry and commerce are becoming more interested in the region. It is especially pleasing to see a number of British companies which were previously Government-owned domestic utilities, such as British Gas and the water companies, emerging on the world scene and winning contracts in Latin America in the face of stiff international competition. We and the Department of Trade and Industry are working jointly to promote trade. Eight export promoters for Latin America have been appointed by the British Overseas Trade Board and business men frequently accompany Ministers on visits to the continent.
Latin America has changed. The old development model.and Government aims of closed economies, high tariffs, nationalised industries and import substitution have given way to an opening up of markets, a lowering of barriers and a welcome of investment. Most Latin American countries have embarked on privatisation programmes, many with help from British banks and institutions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, those economic changes are often painful. It takes political courage to undertake a programme of reform to reduce budget deficits, control inflation, get on top of macro-economic problems, as well to restructure economies. Those changes are not easy, and the fact that, in almost all cases, countries have persisted and are now seeing the fruits of their endeavours demonstrates their political maturity.
It is not, of course, an even process—some countries' rate of change is faster than that of others—and there are exceptions to the general lowering of tariffs. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to Scotch whisky, which faces discriminatory tariffs in a number of Latin American countries. We continually point that out.
It is of almost overriding importance that our continent and the European Union maintain their world trading vocation. We must resist any temptation to live in a fortress Europe. We must be an outward-looking trading organisation, and we must develop links with Latin America generally and with the regional groupings within that continent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham also struck a correct note of caution about any attempt to use trade policy to try to force through social changes in poorer countries. That quickly becomes a form of protectionism, and it is a way of saying, "We're not going to trade with you, you are too poor." That is quite wrong and self-defeating.
Of course we are all repelled by the use of prison labour to undercut the market, and the use of child labour must be addressed through international mechanisms. When trade is used to effect such changes, it is an extremely blunt and clumsy instrument. As those countries recognise, such a policy can quickly become a form of disguised protectionism, which we will always resist.
Parallel political developments have occurred, and the establishment of civilian government is now almost universal in Latin America. If we take as a general test of democracy the three requirements of the rule of law, freedom of expression and representative institutions with

free elections, those countries are democratic. It is noticeable that when they suffer from internal governmental crises, as they have done, they have recently been resolved peacefully and constitutionally.
Some of those crises have been serious, and have involved the removal of presidents, but whereas, 20 years ago, that might have led to the military taking over, now they are coped with and resolved within those countries' constitutions. The old stereotype of Latin America suffering from frequent revolutions, military dictatorships and repression is out of date.
The need to improve the quality of democracy in those countries is widely acknowledged. Democracy does not consist solely of periodic elections. In many instances, it requires the strengthening of the state and its administrative systems. That is why, in some countries, we have aid programmes that fall under the general heading of good government. Human rights abuses are still too common, and there is frequently a need to strengthen the judical and law enforcement systems. We from the outside can often assist with that.
There is a similar point to be made about poverty. We on the Government Benches strongly believe that free trade, liberalisation and market economics provide the dynamic for economic growth and are indispensable. The statist model comprehensively failed. I believe that the economic changes are irreversible.
As for the distribution of wealth, overcoming problems of poverty and ensuring that as many people as possible participate in the market, these are properly matters for the individual countries. They all require a strengthening of the administrative and legal systems, so that all the peoples of the countries that we are discussing can live under governmental systems of probity, integrity and efficiency.
We know that Colombia is a violent country. The connection with drugs money is evident. All too often, the colossal profits made from drugs overwhelm the administrative, judical and law-enforcement systems in the country. These systems are too easily subverted by the flows of drugs money. The war on drugs is an important way of preventing the spread of poisonous drugs into the rest of the world, and of enabling the Government of Colombia to deliver good government in every sense of the term to their citizens.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand the Minister's comments about the drugs war, but I was talking about the growing number of political assassinations of trade union leaders, of social protest groups and of people demanding education, health services and land reform. It seems that foreign Governments all concern themselves with the drugs war and ignore the vicious civil war that is being waged. The number of trade union leaders and political activists who have been assassinated is frightening. Surely that is something that should concern us.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The causes of violent deaths in Colombia are many and complex. Common crime is a factor. Far too many disputes are resolved violently. Far too many people own weapons and use them. There are guerrilla groups that refuse to come into the constitution to pursue their aims democratically. Drugs wars are financed by the profits to which I alluded. There are rogue elements in the security forces.
It is an aim of the Government of Colombia, and of the next president, to improve the judicial and law-enforcement agencies, the police and the army. It is the next president's aim to use his authority to improve those organisations' respect for human rights. That often means improving the pay of their employees, their discipline and their training, and ensuring that they are subject to the civilian authorities.
In Europe, we are used to human rights abuses being very much connected with the overbearing power of the state. Indeed, we have dealt with two ideologies in our continent—fascism and communism—which represented states which in many respects were too powerful. There is a difference between that and what is common in Latin America, where it is often the very weakness of states and their failure to control rogue elements in the apparatus of government that lead to human rights abuses.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend is right. The problem in Colombia is the vast scale of the country and its rugged terrain. Since independence, the Colombian Government have been unable to get their civil writ to apply throughout the country in the minutest detail. We must regard the issue from that perspective, not the extraordinary perspective from Islington High street.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend gives a further illustration of the point that I was making.
May I take this opportunity to pay a personal and parting compliment to the officials and staff in the Department in which I have served for the past year? They have served me with unfailing good humour, in good times and bad. The skill and dedication our diplomats and officials in the Foreign Office are an asset of which this country should be proud.

Orders of the Day — Child Support Agency

Mr. John Spellar: It is unfortunate that we must have this debate, not because of the hour at which we are holding it but because many of us had hoped that, before the recess, the Minister would have made a clear statement about the changes that are so necessary in the Child Support Agency.
Given the clearly identified problems which so many constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House face, it is intolerable that nothing will be done to resolve their real and pressing problems over the next three months. We hoped that Ministers would give some hope to the thousands of families affected, especially as many of them are heading deeply into debt and face horrendous problems as those debts and related problems, such as potential repossession, pile up.
We should also recognise the varied nature of the problems and the way in which they are continuing. I understand from press reports on the Secretary of State's attendance at the Select Committee on Social Security that, in about a fifth of the cases being dealt with—an estimated 40,000 people—individuals are now in receipt of less than 70 per cent. of their income. We have been assured time after time in debates on the CSA in the Chamber that nobody was left with less than 70 per cent. of his or her income and that we were simply hearing scare stories, yet we find that a huge number of people are so affected.
We are not sure, however—I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter this evening—whether the standard assessment is bringing about that result or whether it is because of the clawing back of accumulated debt. Such debt is almost built into the system because of the delays in assessment. Even with a maximum of co-operation by the individuals concerned, that delay can run from 10 weeks to more than three or four months, so substantial debts are built up and the agency is trying to claw money back. Is that why so many people have been telling Members of Parliament over the past year that far more than 30 per cent. is being taken out of their money? Or is it because the CSA is stepping up the deduction-at-source orders and taking money directly from individuals' salaries, irrespective of the effect that it is having on their ability to pay other debts?
As a result of deduction orders, some of my constituents cannot meet their mortgage repayments and face threatening letters from their building society about the future continuity of their mortgage. I hope that the Minister will shed some light on that tonight.
It is true that we have achieved some clarification of the amount that has been collected, although, in the debate on 4 July 1994 and the Question Time before that, the figure moved around a little bit. I hope that we shall be given a clearer estimate of the amount that was collected by the CSA in the past year, although it seems as though that figure is well below target, and does not, up to now, bear especially favourable comparison with the operations of the Department of Social Security when it previously dealt with the application of recovery of maintenance. I hope that we shall obtain an idea of the figures that are involved, and also of the on-going costs—not only the set-up costs, but the running costs—of the agency.
We must welcome the fact that, in the debate on 4 July, the Secretary of State, even if belatedly, announced

changes to deal with the administrative back-up. We all recognise from correspondence with our constituents and with Members of Parliament that, until then, the problems were horrendous. The sheer period of delay was extremely unsatisfactory, and made it difficult to pursue cases and to follow them up. The nature of the replies has, until recently, been fairly deplorable.
We should acknowledge that there has been an improvement in the replies in the past couple of months. One has the feeling now that one is communicating with a human being at the other end of the letter, rather than a pre-programmed computer which spent the first two pages giving one the background history and philosophy of the Child Support Act 1991, and never used to discuss the details of the case that one had raised on behalf of one's constituent. That seems to have improved slightly, and the CSA now appears to be addressing itself to the specific problems, although I know that many of our constituents continue to receive letters that are both belated and relatively incomprehensible.
Even if the administrative problems are overcome, we must recognise that the scheme is fundamentally flawed. There is also the problem that the agency and the Department seem, from time to time, to kick the ball backwards and forwards between one another, especially when issues that relate not so much to administration as to policy are mentioned. They seem, collectively and individually, reluctant to accept the real-life problems that are being created, or, if they do, it is with gradual acquiescence and after a considerable period.
Some movement has taken place, but it has taken an enormous amount of effort to obtain that movement, and many people's lives have been blighted in the meantime.
The underlying problems that confront the agency appear to stem from two factors. One factor is mentioned with monotonous regularity in debates on the subject—the influence of the Treasury, driven by the pressures resulting from the huge increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, and a desire to narrow that down.
No one would deny that the Treasury must have a legitimate interest in substantial sectors of public expenditure. The real question that arises is whether that interest has passed beyond that into obsession, and is being severely overdone to the detriment of individuals. In many cases, Ministers—not only the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), but other Ministers—when speaking about the subject, have constantly asked how much all the changes would cost to the public sector borrowing requirement. Those are legitimate questions to ask, but, by emphasising that aspect as such an overriding priority, they demonstrate that, in effect, the CSA imposes a tax—a tax that falls on specific people, and has fallen with great rapidity, causing huge increases in the amounts that are being taken from those people.
It is also clear that the initial proposals for the introduction of the CSA would have allowed longer lead times, a greater degree of flexibility and the potential for phasing in. But, under pressure from the Treasury, those proposals seem to have been put on one side, which has resulted in the enormous burdens that have been inflicted on individuals. Wiser counsel has perhaps been overcome by the pressure from the Treasury.
In the past, although not so much recently, there have also been quotations about changing the culture. They have been reminiscent of the cultural revolution phrases which


came from another angle in earlier days in the 1960s. People at that time found how difficult it was to institute cultural revolutions. While Governments may wish to bring about some changes in behaviour, they should be extremely careful about how they undertake them, the pace at which they try to implement such revolutions and the effect that they have on the individuals who get caught up in the resulting problems. Different parts of Government policy may be pulling in different directions in the cultural revolution and various strands in the Tory party may be trying to exert influence in different ways, but the victims are getting caught up in the battle.
Last year Members of Parliament found that huge increases in payments were being required. It was that factor that kicked off the main debates in the Chamber and in the country. People were particularly struck by the fact that, whereas changes in local authority taxation—which were fairly fresh in the mind then—had included provisions for transitional arrangements and financial provisions from the Government to ease the transition from one form of local authority taxation to another, there was no such remedy within the CSA legislation. The full force of the legislation fell directly on individuals—with catastrophic effect.
That was only part of the problem; the other aspect that caused, and still is causing, enormous upset was the retrospective nature of the legislation. It was not as though the Government had not been warned. From time to time the reports of the Select Committee on Social Security have been quoted in debates on the CSA. In its second interim report of 30 April 1991, the Select Committee stated extremely clearly:
one particular aspect of the Government's plans, the intention to make the new provisions retrospective, causes us considerable immediate concern. We have therefore agreed to this initial Report to make our views known in advance of the debates on the Bill in the House of Commons.
At the conclusion of the three-page document the Select Committee stated:
We recommend that provision be made in the Child Support Bill to take account of divorce settlements that have involved a capital settlement clearly made in lieu of child maintenance.
Apart from the overall question of retrospective legislation, which excited Conservative Members when they were in Opposition and the Labour party was in power, the fact is that a considerable number of the difficulties could have been avoided had the Government taken the Select Committee's wise words, which it did not dream up out of the air. Those words were based on the experience of the established Australian Child Support Agency which, as has been said innumerable times in the Chamber, has been far more successful than our scheme and has caused less major national upset and debate. One reason is that the scheme was not implemented retrospectively.
Many families made what at the time seemed to be prudent arrangements. Indeed, they were often advised to do so by their lawyers. Whether or not the Minister has some objections to those arrangements because of the implications for the public purse, they were perfectly legal, legitimate and sensible at the time. Now, by a stroke of legislation, those arrangements have been turned upside down. I use that phrase advisedly because it is the phrase used by so many people who have come to my advice bureaux or been at meetings that I have addressed. They have said, "Our world has been turned upside down."
Those people have been prudent, have kept out of debt and have tried to adjust their affairs as they have moved

into a new family relationship. Suddenly, they find that all that is put at risk by the operations of the CSA. In many cases, people made settlements that involved transferring the house to one of the partners. Quite often, payments were also being made. Sometimes people took on the joint debts that had been incurred during the marriage. They did all that on the assumption that they would have to make fewer regular payments, but that has all been turned over and their financial arrangements turned upside down.
I accept that even dispensing with retrospection would leave some longer-term problems. For example, we clearly envisage that there would be far less likelihood of the transfer of the house and therefore the family being able to continue living in the family home—with the consequences of that on the security and welfare of the children. We also envisage that divorce settlements will be more bitterly and fiercely fought. We anticipate considerably more arguments not just about access to the children, but about who will be the parent with care because of the financial implications of that responsibility. There may be further political activity on that front. Even so, it would be at a far lower level than that we are experiencing at the moment.
We are very concerned about why the system is so inflexible. I have previously mentioned the way in which questions asked in this House, especially on policy issues, seem to be bounced backwards and forwards between the Ministers and at the Department. There is an acceptance of the system as it is rather than an examination of the problems that have been created, some of which cry out against common sense and should be resolved at a much earlier stage.
Given the changes that have taken place and the enormous range of human experience, it is inevitable that a series of anomalies will be thrown up. There must be a system to take account of those and to deal with them before people's lives are once again thrown into turmoil.
The Daily Telegraph today again raised the case of the grandparents who adopted their granddaughter to prevent her from being taken into care. I understand that the child is living with other members of the family and that her parents are still alive. However, because the grandparents took action to help the welfare of the child, the CSA is holding them liable for her support.
I have a case in my constituency where a child is being looked after by the grandmother, who has chosen to direct the CSA to one of the parents even though both of them are working. That seems to be extremely inequitable.
There is also the constantly raised question about the income of second spouses or partners. Time and again, they are told that their income is not assessed to establish how much is owed. In that case, they query strongly why they are required to give their income. It does not matter how many times they are told that their income does not affect the sum owed, nobody out there believes it.
If, as the Minister may say, that is only done for their benefit, would it not be better to make the provision of the information voluntary and so avoid a huge amount of mistrust and ill feeling? That would be a simple, straightforward measure which would help the Child Support Agency. There is no mechanism at present within the system for such a political decision. Matters are held in abeyance between the Department and the agency.
Considerable concern is also caused by the prospect of maintaining the spouse's new partner. Most hon. Members will have come across the problem caused by the break-up of a marriage, the circumstances of which do not concern


us, when the ex-wife, as it mostly is, marries or lives with someone who is or becomes unemployed, so that it then appears to the first partner that he is now having to pay not only for the children and the ex-spouse, but for the ex-spouse's new partner if he or she is on income support. That strikes people as absurd and unjust.
That leads to spousal maintenance, which causes enormous resentment. Again, we need not go into the rights and wrongs of the break-up of relationships, but if we are dealing with the Child Support Act and the Child Support Agency, we must query the inclusion of spousal maintenance. In the debate on 4 July the Secretary of State conceded that spousal maintenance was a matter for the courts and it would be better left there. The Minister shakes his head. If he wishes to take up the point, I am sure that I can quote the Secretary of State directly. It would be much better if the maintenance was strictly for the children, not for spouses. It would be considerably better if most of the money went to the children rather than disappeared in abatement against income support.
There is also considerable concern about the assessment and collection charges, particularly for those who did not request the service. The Minister must decide whether the inconvenience, cost of collect and resultant ill feeling is worth such sums of money. There is no doubt that that is causing considerable resentment.
The Minister must also be concerned at the huge amounts of arrears that many individuals are building up. Those who have never previously been in debt now find themselves in debt. As always, one of the problems is that debt becomes a multiple problem—as people fall into debt in other areas and face repossession, penalty costs and bailiffs and join the vicious cycle that we want to prevent. That requires a speeding up of the process of assessment and perhaps a re-examination of the way in which those arrears can build up.
The first key element of change is that more money should go to the children and the disregard should be reconsidered. In Australia, the disregard is far more generous and that leads to far wider public acceptability. Not only is it true that in many instances the money does not go to the children; the family is worse off as a result of money coming via the CSA because the mother often loses passported benefits.
In my constituency, a mother with three children is £15 a week worse off as a result of the money coming via the CSA and having to pay for school dinners. That is a considerable dent in the family income, resulting in real problems. We would be grateful for an indication of the amount that will go to children. The original estimate, given in the Minister's evidence to the Select Committee, was £50 million out of £480 million. A variety of estimates were given on 4 July. May we have an up-to-date figure?
I hope that the Minister will take on board the question of incurred costs, particularly in respect of travel to the individual's place of employment. They may be reflected by higher income but if there is not a similar offset, that adds substantially to the individual's CSA liability without any commensurate benefit. Also, the Australian scheme makes allowance for access. That is a much bigger country, but many people in this country are confronted by significant access costs.
There needs to be recognition of previous settlements and some phasing, to incorporate some of the huge changes. One suggestion is that after an individual has been given a notional assessment, his payments should increase £5 a week at yearly intervals. That would avoid huge disruption to people's lives and finances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has argued before for a proper appeals procedure on the lines of the Australian model, which would introduce robust common sense, which has been absent so far.
Would such changes require amending the legislation or scrapping the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency and devising a new Act? The 1991 Act and the agency in its current form are unsustainable and should certainly go.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We have had many opportunities to debate the vexed question of the Child Support Agency. I welcome this bizarrely late slot, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on his persistence and staying power. I hope that the Minister will be able to give useful information before we give way to other hon. Members who are deeply enthusiastic about very different issues.
This is almost certainly the last time that I will address the House as a DSS spokesman for my party, until we return from the summer recess. I notice from today's events that not only the Department's budget but its ministerial team is expanding. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) has been joined by three Under-Secretaries of State—one of them in the other place. I hope that it is not tasteless to observe that there is a newly minted Minister of State. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury, North has to be married to duty in the Child Support Agency. In the hon. Gentleman's case, no doubt, virtue will have its own reward.
The CSA has given rise to enormous discontent, bitterness and difficulties, the like of which I have not seen before in my career in this place. In the debate on 4 July, there was broad canvassing of the issues, and I do not intend to spend time going over the whole canvas.
I shall raise one or two points in short compass in the hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to help me with information and with clarification. Most hon. Members will know that the suggested sum of £310 million was raised by the agency in its first year of operation. That figure appears in the agency's annual report for 1993–94, which was published on 4 July—the very morning of the Opposition Supply day.
As the Minister will know, in a letter to the Select Committee, the chief executive of the agency produced a figure of £312 million, which is a very minor adjustment, of which I would make no criticism. I wish to place on record some of the conclusions, which I hope I have justifiably drawn, from that letter, and which will be of some interest to those following the debate. I remember that, on 4 July, I asked about the contribution that had been made by the liable relatives section. I did not get a reply, but it was a detailed point, and I recognise that, in the hurly-burly of exchanges, not every point can be picked up.
If I have understood it correctly—I say that a little tentatively, because the figures still seem to be somewhat obscure in some respects—the amount of that £312 million


that is directly attributable to the liable relatives section and to arrangements that predate the Child Support Agency was £199 million. If we take that out, we are left with a figure for the first year of operation which is directly linked to the activities of the CSA, and assessments levied by it fall to £112 million. I say this in no sarcastic or hostile way, but that seems to me to be a startlingly modest figure against all the claims that were made.
If one looks at that £112 million, one will see that something else of interest emerges, on which I invite the Minister's comments. Apart from the £199 million for the liable relatives section's activities—its continuing legacy —we also find that £98 million is accounted for by the parents with care who are drawing family credit. Those people are of particular interest, because they give rise to the £73 million, which, rather surprisingly, popped up as the amount that was being retained by parents with care.
I shall come to that in just a minute. Let us deal with the £98 million. It is extremely helpful of Ros Heppelwhite to have supplied the figures. She gives a breakdown of that figure, and says:
Of the total of £98 million, £27.9 million offset benefit spending. The balance of £70.1 million was retained by parents with care due to the application of the disregard.
She went on to explain that.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that, or point out to me where I am wrong—if I am wrong—but it seems almost inevitable that the £98 million must also be split in terms of deciding what can be linked directly to the activities of the CSA, in the same way that the £199 million must be separated out to get the correct figure.
I put this as an Aunt Sally, but it would seem reasonable to assume that the £98 million would have to be split between the liable relatives section activity carrying on from a previous year and new assessments from the CSA, in roughly the same ratio as the £199 million to the rest of the total.
Ros Hepplewhite's notes state:
Information is not available on how much of the amount shown in the table for Family Credit"—
that is, £98 million—
was arranged by the CSA.
I see no reason to think, however, that that split would be any different from the split represented by the £199 million. If I am right, another £60 million or £70 million, in addition to the £199 million, is not attributable to the CSA's activities but would have been paid and collected in any event under the liable relatives scheme. If that is correct, it is possible that as little as £40 million can be attributed directly to the CSA's first year of operation.
I recognise that I have reached a fairly dramatic conclusion, but it seems reasonably logical, give or take a few million; we are talking in very large sums. When Ros Hepplewhite appeared before the Select Committee, it was put to her that effectively only £15 million—the £15 million enumerated in the appendix to the report that has just appeared—could properly be claimed as having been gathered in by the CSA. That may be a little harsh, however; the agency may be entitled to the rather larger figure that I mentioned, for the reasons I gave.
It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would comment. He has the time: he will not be howled down by eager hecklers. I hope that I can speak even on behalf of the beleaguered Liberal Democrats who are in our midst, for we all know that they are men of peace. This is important; we all want to know the definitive figure, and I think that my exposition has been reasonably clear.
Let me put my question in brutal terms: how much new money is in that £312 million? It is self-evident that we can take out the £199 million, and that we must split the £98 million: we have that on the CSA's own figures. But am I right in thinking that that brings us to a figure of less than £40 million in the agency's first year of activity? If so, is this not an extraordinary state of affairs, given the claims, hopes, expectations and trouble that have resulted from the whole operation?
Given that we can expect a considered reply, will the Minister also give us some explanation of the benefits savings? When I spoke on 4 July, I pointed out that, at that point, £310 million had been gathered in, and £418 million had been saved in benefits. I did not apologise for expressing some scepticism as to how £310 million could be translated into benefit savings so much greater than the total sum paid in maintenance.
Let me be fair to myself. I said then that I recognised that certain factors—particularly cases in which a claim for income support or benefit had been abandoned—might, by applying a multiplier, have produced additional savings to explain the more than 100 per cent. translation of maintenance paid into benefit savings. I understand that that is what happened in this instance.
As the Minister will know, the £418 million total includes the £199 million from the liable relatives total again; that must be taken out immediately. In addition, it includes what are labelled—rather mysteriously, to the layman—"non-maintenance cessations", which amount to the noble sum of £138.2 million. As I understand it, non-maintenance cessations refers to situations when benefit ceases, presumably because of the activities of the agency and its approach to the parties in the case.
I am interested because I know that there are many reasons why the claims might be abandoned, and I can quote parliamentary answers from the Minister which show that. It may be that there has been a reconciliation between the parties, or that the party who has authorised the claim has returned to work, and there is no locus for the agency to intervene.
There are a variety of other circumstances. I am not clear about the basis on which it was decided when a claim, having been abandoned, should be seen as collusive desertion or some other form of fraud. That is important, and it is clear that not all the claims could fit into that category. Many of them might be claims that would have fallen by the wayside anyway for some of the other reasons that I have mentioned.
I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on this, because those of us who are engaged in the minutiae of the issue are genuinely interested in how the split was made. If no deduction was made for honest cessation of claims, the £138 million could be an optimistic figure. As it is a key figure in terms of justifying the £418 million, we should be told how it was arrived at.
Even in cases of fraud, perhaps the Minister could say a word or two about how the benefit saving was calculated and which multiplier was applied. I am aware that the Department of Social Security uses standard multipliers, and I have no doubt that the Minister will have them at his fingertips. I am afraid that I am not as versed as the Department in that type of detail. We should know, because page 8 of the CSA's annual report says:
Just as the nature of the work carried out by the Agency has changed in comparison with previous systems, so has the basis for calculating some of these savings, thus giving a better


indication of the impact of the system on benefit expenditure.
That is an extremely interesting sentence that is full of inferences and implications. However, on any reasonable interpretation, it is implying that the basis for calculating the savings in these cases has changed from that which has been used previously in similar cases. The report uses the words
giving a better indication of the impact".
If it is more optimistic in terms of giving a higher savings figure as against what has been used previously, the House is entitled to know about it and to hear from the Minister.
I mention in passing the maintenance cessation figure of £16.3 million. As I understand it, that occurs when someone is floated off benefit; in other words, the maintenance payment is so high that the benefit claim is excluded and automatically falls. If we can calculate the figure of £16.3 million, why is it impossible to calculate the number of people involved? If we can corral the cases and quantify them to calculate the figure of £16.3 million, on that basis, we should be able to say how many people are involved.
I have asked parliamentary questions about that and I have been told—this is an experience familiar to other hon. Members—that the figure is not available and cannot be found. Perhaps the Minister can help me. If the system cannot produce the number of people in this circumstance, it seems a little odd that it can produce a total figure of £16.3 million as the proceeds of benefit saving. I do not see how we can reconcile those two points. The Minister has some time in hand, so perhaps he will say a word or two about that issue. From that flows the final category, which involves the consequential savings in housing benefit and council tax which, at more than £28 million, are substantial.
I should like to understand the figures better in order to be able to assess the £418 million. Even if we assume that the figures are above board, we must take about £199 million—almost half of the £418 million—away from what has been produced by the CSA. I concede that the CSA's report contains a coded message when it states:
We estimate that, in total in 1993/4, the payment of maintenance exceeded £310 million in cases in which the Agency was involved. Nevertheless, it is evident that not enough of this yet stems from new arrangements, and that many absent parents were not complying in full with the assessments we made.
On a narrow inspection, and if one were in full possession of the facts, one could make a deduction from the phrase
not enough of this yet stems from new arrangements".
Nevertheless, that is an inadequate way in which to flag up the fact that at least half the alleged benefit savings did not come from the activities of the CSA but comprised money that would have almost certainly been collected in any event with the run-on of what had been set up by the liable relatives section.
I shall deal hurriedly with a couple more points, as I promised that my speech would be of narrow compass. The Labour party has an agenda for change with which the Minister is very familiar. I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West said. There has been inflexibility, and I was especially interested in what he had to say about the collecting of information on the income of a spouse in the case where the so-called

absent parent has either remarried or is living with a new partner. It seems to me that the only reason for having that information is to calculate the protected income.
I wonder whether there is not a case for saying that, as long as the people involved are aware of the protected income rules, are satisfied that they would not benefit from them and therefore do not want to provide that information, they should have that privilege. Of course, they should recognise that they have no right to complain if they then discover that, had they returned the information and used the protected income rules, they might have benefited from them. However, I am sure that, like me, the Minister is aware of many cases in which an interim assessment has had to be made. That is in no one's interest.
I reinforce another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West. I, too, was fascinated by press reports to the effect that 40,000 of those who had been the subject of a mainstream CSA assessment were left with less than 70 per cent. of their net income as a result. That is a clear breach of the guidelines, which stipulate that a spouse should be left with 70 per cent. to 85 per cent. of net income—being left with even 70 per cent. puts one at the very bottom of what should be quite a generous range of possibilities.
Ros Hepplewhite told the Select Committee that 20 per cent. of cases fell below that level, although she said that virtually none fell below 60 per cent. However, the fact is that about one in five cases falls between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent.
We have not yet had the printed evidence but, according to press reports, the Secretary of State tried to minimise the number of such cases by saying that it was based on a rough sample, that—typically—it dealt with people who did not have second families, and that they had no or low housing costs. However, it is a serious matter.
I should perhaps wear sackcloth and ashes. Protesting groups often told me that many people were being taken below the 70 per cent. threshold, but I expressed scepticism about that. In a sense, I now feel that I owe those groups an apology, because it is clear that the number of people affected in that way is substantial.
Something must be done about that. We cannot simply wait and see whether anything comes out at the end of the day. When we are faced with such a situation, it is essential that we secure a commitment from the Government to deal with it, and to re-establish the guidelines that they originally presented as an important part of the system that they were introducing. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two, not to minimise the point but to show what he intends to do about it.
That takes me neatly to my final point. I do not want to run over the arguments for an independent appeal procedure, or for the possibility of a disregard for dealing with clean-break settlements. The Minister is well aware of that agenda; I hope that it will be part of his agenda too, and that he will consider it carefully.
May I remind the Minister of our exchanges of 4 July? I asked him whether he could
give us any indication of any area in which he believes reform is necessary".
The Minister courteously replied:
I shall come to that too in my closing remarks … because it is a serious point."—[Official Report. 4 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 113.]
We all know how time can overtake one when one is making a speech in this place. Sadly, the Minister did not


get round to dealing with the question or explaining what those areas might be. I do not criticise him for the omission, but he now has the chance to put it right.
I hope that he will be able to tell us the areas on which he is concentrating, and whether he accepts, as I hope he does, that there are genuine matters of concern that must be tackled.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on securing the debate. As always, he made several constructive criticisms, as well as others that I consider less supportable. And, as always, I appreciate the manner in which he has put his arguments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that developing a sustainable system for the delivery of child support is important, and that we are all genuinely trying to find our way through some difficult issues to develop a satisfactory system.
I have often explained in detail the principles that underpin the new system of assessing child maintenance, and it would stretch the patience of the House if, at this late hour, I embarked on another reassertion of those principles. I shall therefore not set them out again, but it is important not to forget that once a measure has been passed we spend much time in the House dealing with extremely detailed criticism, and may forget some of the underlying reasons for the legislation—such as the position of lone parents on income support, the vast majority of whom do not receive maintenance.
The House has touched on that subject before, but it was not raised one whit in the debate. Perhaps it is easily forgotten, and I am somewhat frustrated by the fact that in our concentration on the detailed effects of the Child Support Act 1991 and of the Child Support Agency we may forget about the other side of the coin. Other people —such as representatives of the National Council for One Parent Families—have been before the Select Committee to make that point, and there is an occasional interview on television or in the newspapers about the other side of the story.
Again, nothing has been said about that tonight. Shortage of time may be to blame; this is a late-night Adjournment debate, and it is easy to forget the people whom the system was set up to support. However, it is worth putting on the record that it remains a principal concern of mine to try to ensure that the system works for the benefit of those people and that we do not forget the injustices of the previous system, which were among the reasons for introducing the current system. I do not forget that, even if other people apparently do.
I do not forget, either, the fact that the Child Support Act was passed with the universal support of the House, as something that we all wanted to do. The need for it was recognised at the time, and I am grateful for that, but when principles are put into practice they can sometimes be rather harder to swallow. However, that said, I do not stand here tonight to suggest in any way that the system works perfectly, that there are no problems in the system and that there is nothing about which the Government are concerned.
When the Act came into operation, we said that the Government thought it right to keep any new legislation under review. That is especially true in the case of a change

that has been described on more than one occasion by the Select Committee as the most major change in social policy since 1945. The Government showed faith in those remarks by ensuring that last February, after a period of reflection on the first six months or so of the working of the Act, they made changes based on their own observations and on some of the work of the Select Committee.
The changes that we introduced included, first, a substantial increase in the minimum amount of income an absent parent would keep after meeting his maintenance liability. Secondly, there was a reduction in the additional element where there was a liability for only one or two children. Thirdly, there was a reduction in the amount included for the care needs of the children as they grew older. Fourthly, there was an extension of the arrangements for phasing in the new amounts.
Information is now starting to feed through on the impact of the changes. I once again appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar) but I may not be able to go into quite as much detail as he would like. As he understood, we have said a number of times that it is important to look at the impact of the February changes and to trace them over a period before considering whether and what further reforms might be necessary.
Our early signs are that as many as 44,000 absent parents have already benefited from the changes to the formula. On average, liability appears to have been reduced by about £9 a week. When one bears in mind the fact that the formula was designed to increase average assessments by around £20 to £30 a week, it can be seen that the changes are not just minor tinkering but a real arid substantial adjustment to absent parents' liabilities. The House will recall that, on average, figures for maintenance under previous systems were estimated to be between £25 and £30 and that the new figures were supposed to be between £45 and £50. Average liability should, therefore, be reduced by some £9 a week, which is a reasonable sign that the changes made in February had quite a considerable direct impact. It would also be helpful for the House to note that the reforms have been of particular benefit to absent parents on low incomes or with second families.
The changes have not, of course, met all the criticisms of the scheme and some absent parents continue to be dissatisfied. It is, however, important to remember that in almost every case that the Child Support Agency has handled so far, the parent with care and her children are in receipt of income-related benefit. In contrast, the vast majority of absent parents enjoy a much higher standard of living. Two points arise from that.
The hon. Member for Warley, West again made his comment about feeling how unfair it was that so much of the maintenance collected went back to the taxpayer by way of the Treasury. I have never felt that that was wrong. The House, in passing the Act, recognised that, for too long, the taxpayer had been the unwitting supporter of separations between parties in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that the House can hold to that opinion and then criticise the work of the agency in ensuring that the taxpayer sees some benefit from increased maintenance payments designed not only to secure higher levels of maintenance for the families involved but to ensure that the taxpayer is not bearing so much of the burden. Bearing in mind the difference in income between the parties, there is some equity in changing the balance, which was previously so heavily weighted towards second families.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept the point that, even if the House and the Government wanted to make that change, to make it in such a drastic way has had a devastating effect on those families? Transitional arrangements would have been a far more sensible and equitable way in which to restore the balance that the Government wanted.

Mr. Burt: The Government take the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why phasing arrangements were in place in the Act and that is why the phasing arrangements were changed in February to take account of just the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. They were changed to ensure that where there were second families and there had been a written agreement or a previous court order, the increases in maintenance were carefully phased. That has been done and that is one of the things that has resulted in a change in the circumstances of absent parents, which the hon. Gentleman would support. Phasing arrangements have not been forgotten; they are there.
A number of matters were raised, both by the hon. Member for Warley, West and by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I shall cover one or two of them, but I shall not be able to cover them all at this late hour. I want to say something about the performance and administration of the CSA because the hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned those important points. I want to mention them too.
It is perfectly straightforward for me to tell my colleagues that I am disappointed with the administration of the agency in its first year. The report was a fair and accurate reflection of the fact that the agency, its chief executive and those involved felt that their performance had not been as good as they wished; they were up-front about that. A number of reasons were advanced for that, and I stand by them.
A new system was being set up from scratch. A number of assumptions had to be made about the operational workings of the agency and about how long it would take people to respond to the requests for information. Assumptions were also made about the ease of verification, and the like. Again, the House will know of the importance attached to verification, checking and the ruthless pursuit of accuracy on some occasions to ensure that the system works fairly on behalf of us all.
All of that has taken more time than was anticipated, and has resulted in a backlog of cases and—as most colleagues in the House will know—a backlog of correspondence, and the like. I regard some of those difficulties as being almost unacceptable to hon. Members, and I apologise. I am deeply sorry that the administration was not able to work as smoothly as we wished.
It is one thing to stand here and say as honestly and as fairly as I can that I am disappointed that the administration has not worked well. It would be another thing to ignore that and say, "Carry on, chaps. You must make do." We do not believe that that is right, and that is why we have taken steps to make changes to the administration and ensure better responsiveness. However, I warn my colleagues that there is a time lag because we are dealing with work that requires skills and trained personnel. We cannot simply draft in people and expect an immediate change in the workings of the agency. It takes time to train people and to see an improvement. I am sure that the measures that we have taken will show that.
I shall discuss in detail some of the things that we have been doing.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burt: I shall outline the changes that we have made and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Child Support Agency is currently putting in practice a range of measures to improve productivity and customer service. It is recruiting an additional 700 staff to work in areas where the agency has identified the need for the input of dedicated resources: reviews, appeals and customer inquiries. It is in the process of centralising the handling of incoming telephone calls by setting up dedicated call-handling sections in each of its six child support centres. These will handle all case-specific inquiries enabling child support officers to concentrate on processing their case loads. That is important.
The other week, I was in Birkenhead. The difference that call handling sections make is that, effectively, the calls that were being put through to business teams checking on the progress of cases, which disrupted that work necessarily, are now screened by telephone operators who have access to the information held by the business teams. The replies can be given, therefore, by the operators with the use of that access. That prevents calls from going through to the business teams, so they can get on with the job.
I have seen the work of the CSA centres. I have gone around on the floor and seen people constantly answering telephones and trying to deal with paperwork at the same time. I have seen the effect of that in Birkenhead and the quietness on the business team floors as they are able to do their work, in contrast with the business of the caller section downstairs. I know that call handling is just a simple, straightforward and practical thing that will pay a dividend for us all.
The CSA has established a centralised national inquiry line for the handling of general inquiries. The line will be connected to call-handling sections to allow for the direct transfer of calls between the two. It is planning to upgrade information technology support in local offices and to give local staff the facility to process case work on the child support computer system. That will increase the productivity of local child support officers and give agency managers greater flexibility.
The agency is also in the process of developing further the automation of its management information service, which already provides regular and accurate information on key performance indicators—although, as the House will know, not enough in crucial areas where the House has been asking for extra information. That is acknowledged by the Government and the agency, and the work that we are doing to improve the management system will help to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden tonight. It will also enable the agency to deploy its resources more effectively.
Finally, before I come to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), let me say that the agency is in the process of introducing a standard operational model for its child support centres based on the best practices which emerged during the agency's first year. For example, the centres are streamlining the procedures by which they liaise with the Benefits Agency, which must make some adjudication decisions at some


stage of the process, and they are standardising the way in which their debt management teams operate. It would be premature to attempt to quantify the success of the improvements and many of the measures must be fully implemented, but some changes are already noticeable.

Mr. Barnes: One problem that I have discovered is that my constituents who are being dealt with by the Belfast office seem to get different information at different stages. It is almost as though two or three different people are dealing with the files in Belfast. An instruction sent on one day may be countermanded by another sent the following day. Constituents are left confused. Even after I have written to Ros Hepplewhite and I seem to have resolved the problem, it is then handed over to Belfast, where it is not resolved immediately. It is difficult to believe that any co-ordination exists. Another problem is created by the letters that are generally sent to constituents. Those computer-produced letters are unsigned and it is difficult to discover whether different people are handling cases and dealing with them in different ways.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right to criticise the fact that different information is provided to constituents or Members of the House. That is wrong and I understand that the approach be should consistent. Different people handle cases at different stages because the work is functionalised during different parts of the process. While it may be possible that different people handle the same case, the same accurate information should be offered at all times and properly given.
Some of the problems are due to the fact that the agency has been set up from scratch. Hon. Members have discussed before some of the operational problems that I have been open enough to outline again to the House tonight. I ask colleagues to acknowledge that it is for the agency to improve its performance markedly to ensure that the problems that affect colleagues do not persist for too long.
I should like to put on record my great appreciation of the work done by the staff of the agency. Many cases are proceeding perfectly straightforwardly. The House will be aware that the CSA took on 850,000 cases in its first year, sent out that number of forms and processed those cases. The staff are working well and are well informed. Each of the agency's centres has a notice board displaying letters thanking the staff for their work. I will not discuss the pressure under which those staff work, but the House knows my feelings, and I know the feelings of all colleagues about the unfair pressure under which civil servants, carrying out Government policy have been placed. That pressure has not helped either. The staff are working hard and they are determined to improve their performance at all levels to ensure that some of the difficulties are resolved.
The agency is encouraged by the increased level of performance that has been achieved in the first quarter of 1994–95. More than half as many maintenance assessments were cleared in the three months up to the end of June —177,000—as in the whole of 1993–94. The number of cases now awaiting assessment is falling and more action is being taken to ensure compliance. In all those ways, the performance of the agency is improving considerably and will continue to do so.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about what areas we might be specifically concerned. The reason that

I have hesitated to pick out specific areas, and why I will hesitate again to do so tonight, is that it would be unfair for me to pick out two or three particular areas and say that we are concentrating on them. If I did that, people might say, "Oh. This is what the Government are going to do." I have already said that the Government keep the workings of the 1991 Act under review. Hon. Members have raised a number of concerns and they will know that, when the need for reform was proved, we responded in February, in good faith, with a number of changes. I ask the House to keep faith with that process again. When we say that we are keeping the entire workings of the Act under review, we mean just that—nothing more, nothing less. I know that the hon. Member for Garscadden is not being mischievous, but I will not tempted down a series of roads to suggest that we are doing one thing rather more than another.
A number of matters have emerged. As the House will know, there are answers to—

Mr. Dewar: I shall not try to chivvy the Minister out of his cautious stance. There is a difference between a Minister who says as a matter of routine that good Government Departments always keep systems under review and a Minister who has a determination to review things because there is a recognition that change is required. Can we at least have an assurance that we are watching the second type of Minister?

Mr. Burt: I have said in the past, and I have repeated tonight, that the entire system is being kept under review, and that if the need for change is proved, the Government will make changes. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman as to intent and also on our approach to these matters.
I shall move on to one or two other matters before the hon. Gentleman chivvies me for not answering enough of his questions.

Mr. Dewar: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Burt: I do not wish to take the time of the House. I know that it is anxious to move on.
First, I shall deal with the 70 per cent. issue by quoting from the basic CSA leaflet that goes out to families. It reads:
Absent parents who do not have other children of their own living with them will usually be expected to pay between 15 per cent and 30 per cent of this net income figure in child support maintenance.
I said in Select Committee that typically some 70 to 85 per cent. of net income would be available. I do not think that I or the Government ever suggested that in all cases everyone would be in that banding. We said that the majority would be, and that typically people would have about 70 per cent. plus of their income, but not everyone.
Hon Members are right to say that evidence taken from Ros Hepplewhite and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the Select Committee dealt with instances where the figure had gone below 70 per cent. There are hardly any cases—I think six out of the sample that was taken—where the figure has gone below 60 per cent. The majority of the 20 per cent. of absent parents who are left with less than 70 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance are left with between 65 to 70 per cent. The reasons for that are those that were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the Select Committee.
Those who are left with less than 70 per cent. of their income after paying maintenance usually have low or no


housing costs and, therefore, a low rate of expenditure to offset against net income. They may also have several children for whom maintenance is payable. Those have been typically the cases that have gone below 70 per cent. No indication was given that everyone would be above 70 per cent. In fact, what we said turned out to be accurate. Usually, most people have 70 per cent. plus of their net income left. I note, however, the concern of the House, as does the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend.
The flexibility of the formula has been raised again. It is a central issue. The formula was introduced to try to provide a degree of consistency and stability for those making decisions in maintenance matters. We cannot have it both ways. Either we provide that degree of stability by way of a formula so that everyone knows what he or she is likely to be paying or receiving, or we reintroduce elements of discretion at different levels and thereby introduce a degree of uncertainty.
My understanding was that two or three years ago the House accepted that the discretionary system had failed those who were depending on it or paying for it. We wanted to ensure, therefore, that something rather better was in place. We opted for consistency. That is why we have the formula. Obviously, changes and adjustments could be made within the formula, and the hon. Member for Warley, West made his own selection. I put to him the same argument as I put to the Select Committee last year, which was that everyone has different priorities, so a check list can be produced in which the priority of payment to the child gradually slips lower and lower. The difficulty then is that one ends up with exactly the same system as before, in which the amount of maintenance payable to the child is less because people want other essentials to be taken into account.
The formula was constructed to try to leave about 70 per cent. of net income available for those various obligations. If we take account of more and more expenses before maintenance is calculated and then simply reduce the maintenance that goes to the parent with care of the child, the benefit to the taxpayer who must support the whole system will also be reduced. I am not sure whether that is what is wanted.
That matter triggers my memory about an issue that I did not cover when I wound up the last debate. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that I had been offensive by mentioning pet food. He does not toss such an accusation in my direction lightly, and I was so thrown by it that I forgot to return to it on winding up. I took the pet food example from a real case in which a woman had written to us—it was reported in the newspapers—to say that, when her husband presented to the court his list of essential expenses to be taken into account before maintenance of the child was calculated, it included £8 a week for pet food. I grant that that does not apply to every case, but it was not offensive. What is offensive is a system in which pet food could be considered more important, to the father or the court, than child maintenance.
I was not using the example to suggest that such an expense is taken into account in every case, and it was not de minimis, simply to be dismissed. It was an example to show that, once we begin to take all sorts of essential expenses into account, according to the individual concerned, such a problem may be encountered.

Mr. Dewar: My memory is not as good as it should be. I think that I said that the Minister's comment was described as offensive in a subsequent letter commenting on his article. I may have expressed sympathy with that view, but I was essentially quoting a letter that appeared in a local newspaper.
It is, however, unwise to use an extreme example which none of us would defend as a reason to rule out any new flexibility in the system. I object to the Minister using a hard case to support his position.

Mr. Burt: I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not use the pet food example in that sense. I was simply reminded of it as we went through lists of expenses and thought that I would sort it out while we were here.
The point that I was making did not relate to pet food, but if more and more expenses are introduced into the formula, it is an example of the risk that we run. I recognise the concerns that have been raised in the House about travel-to-work expenses and other such matters.
I shook my head at the hon. Member for Warley, West when he was discussing spousal maintenance. Spousal maintenance is not in the formula. It is a carer's allowance, which recognises that a child cannot exist on its own but needs someone to look after it. That person may be the mother, who spends her time looking after the child and cannot go out to work or goes out to work and needs to pay for child care. Many people consider the carer's allowance to be spousal maintenance. Absent parents who feel aggrieved about it describe it thus, but it is not so described in the formula or anywhere else, so I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get off that tack.

Mr. Spellar: Could not the Minister save himself a considerable amount of trouble merely by raising the amount for individuals? After all, if a child of five needs someone to look after it, the child needs that care irrespective of who gives it. Why does not he take out that item, which causes continual major resentment?

Mr. Burt: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, if we took out the title of carer's allowance and moved £25, £40 or whatever into the child's personal allowance, his constituents would suddenly say, "That is all right; we are not paying spousal maintenance any more", I think that he has another think coming, because it is a deeper point than that.
I will finish by doing the best that I can with some of the questions about the figures. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Garscadden said, at 4 o'clock in the morning, about detailed figures. He will excuse me if I say that I shall have to write to him about some of them, because he mentioned some serious matters and I am anxious to be helpful, as was Ros Hepplewhite when she wrote to the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman rightly went through many of the figures given.
The £312 million represents the amount of maintenance in cases with which the CSA has been involved. It is not solely a figure of maintenance arranged or received by the agency's collection service, but includes an estimate of maintenance paid direct to parents with care by absent parents, as well as sums that continue to be paid from pre-CSA arrangements.
For many reasons, we believe that comparison between the child support unit and the Child Support Agency performance is not valid. The child support unit—the old "liable relative" staff—dealt only with clients receiving


income support, and was able to direct attention to cases where it was most likely that maintenance could be arranged. The Child Support Agency is a very different organisation, offering a service to parents on income support, including those between whom no maintenance has ever been paid, to those receiving in-work benefits, such as family credit, and to parents who receive no benefit.
Once taken on, all applications to the agency must be given equal attention, irrespective of whether maintenance will eventually be assessed. I do not believe that the old liable relative system was running down; the figures of maintenance received over the years were steadily climbing, so I do not think that that argument is proved. The hon. Member for Garscadden did not weigh too much on that.
I shall now discuss the construction of figures—the breakdown of the figures, which show £312 million maintenance collected, and benefit savings arising of about £418 million. We could go through them piece by piece, but I do not especially wish to do that for the House.
We have tried to draw a distinction between the maintenance administered by the Child Support Agency arising from pre-CSA arrangements, and maintenance and other savings arising from CSA assessments and other action. The information available to the House splits the amounts between benefit savings and maintenance collected. In some cases, it is one and the same.
For instance, if we consider maintenance administered by the CSA arising from pre-CSA arrangements, the amounts paid direct by the absent parent to the parent with care receiving income support totalled £175 million, and that was all benefit savings because that directly saved income support. Similarly, the amounts paid by absent parents through the pre-agency collection service to parents with care receiving income support was £24 million, and that was also all direct benefit savings. That is how the figure of £199 million is obtained, and that is all direct benefit savings.
The family credit figures have proved to be better, and our original estimate that about £50 million would go directly to parents with care increased as a result of the success of the family credit operation. There, the maintenance collected was £98 million, but the benefit saving was only £27.9 million, the other money going directly to the parent with care in addition to benefits, so there was a net increase in income to the parent with care. That gave a total of benefit savings of £226.9 million, compared with maintenance collected of £297 million. That all stems from the maintenance administered by the CSA arising from pre-CSA arrangements.
Let us consider the maintenance and other savings arising from the CSA assessments and other actions. Some £50 million of maintenance was directly collected, but it yielded total benefit savings of £190.7 million. The figures are available to the hon. Member for Garscadden. They were set out in the letter, together with notes. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed questions on the subject. I should be grateful if I could reply to them in detail by letter—I think that that would be the best way to deal with them. It may provide opportunity for debate in the next Session so that the issues can be amplified and placed on the record if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Dewar: I am happy with that. I shall read our exchanges and I might also write to the Minister. May I

raise one general policy point? With some justification, the Minister makes great play of the family credit figures. They are useful to him because they benefit children. They do so because there is a disregard. I recognise that there is a distinction between people on benefit and people who work and receive top-up benefit. It seems that there is a lesson to be learned about the large number of children living in families on income support who are not benefiting at all. Does the Minister share that view?

Mr. Burt: I do, but the hon. Gentleman will also know that I have a strongly held view that there is a danger in introducing a disregard into the income support system. First, it would create a slightly higher hurdle for those on income support wanting to return to work—they would need to earn £5, £10, £15 or whatever more. We are anxious to reduce those disincentives to return to work; the system is designed to do so. That is why the incentive is deliberately in the in-work system.
Secondly, there is the issue of cost, which is difficult to calculate. We all know that introducing such a system would incur considerable expense. Thirdly, it would be inequitable. Some people would receive extra amounts in their income support benefit through the payment of money to which they were entitled. Other people receiving benefit simply would not have access to that extra money in the benefit system. People would soon be lobbying me and knocking at my door to say how unfair that system was and to ask why income support should not be increased to ensure that everybody benefited in the same way. There would be problems, which is why we have not introduced that system.
We have had a long discussion and I have probably taken up more time than I should have done. The subject is important, and I think about it carefully, as do the Government. I appreciate colleagues' concern about the subject and I do not wish to send them away for the recess under the illusion that we do not take it seriously. We know that other parts of the House, including the Select Committee, take it seriously.
The principles are right and are strongly supported around the House. We all wish to see a workable system. We have proved in the past that, where change is needed, we have been prepared to make it. Not every change that is suggested can be introduced—it would not be right to introduce them all. It is important to ensure that the principles survive. Some of them are hard to live up to —particularly when we say to the population at large that, through their taxes, they have provided too much by way of supporting separation agreements, and we now want to give them some relief. We have all signed up to that principle, but it is hard to implement in practice when constituents who come to our surgeries are having to pay more money. We have to stand by the principles and say that they are right.
We want a sustainable and good system of child maintenance for the future. The Government are determined to ensure that improvements in administration help to deliver that, but they are not blind to the other problems. We shall continue to keep the matter carefully under review and I have the strongest suspicion that we are likely to discuss the subject again when the House returns after the recess.

The allotted time having expired, the debate was concluded in accordance with MADAM SPEAKER's statement—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1197.]

Orders of the Day — Forestry Commission

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the Forestry Commission before the House rises for the summer recess. It gives me no comfort to drag hard-working Ministers of the Crown, such as the Minister with responsibility for forestry, to the Chamber. I am certain that he would have been up half the night anyway waiting for a telephone call from No. 10 Downing street, which I am sure will come sooner rather than later. It would be well-deserved if it did. As I get older in this place, I become more and more convinced of the need for radical reform of the way that we work so that debates such as this can be taken at more reasonable and social hours.
I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) who, ever assiduous, is in his place. I know that he takes a great interest in the subject. I had an interesting visit to a forest not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch during the European elections. The Forestry Commission workers showed me how they had managed to erect bat boxes in the trees in the forest just north of Bournemouth. I thought that bats lived in cages, but the Forestry Commission looks after bats as well as everything else—very good work it does too.
I am not offering the Minister an apology for bringing him to the Dispatch Box on this subject on this day. I applied for this slot in the Consolidated Fund debate last week, before there was any certainty that the Government would make a statement on this subject before the summer recess. I know that the Minister will say that it was expected. I accept that the statement was very full and I was pleased that it was made.
I was also reasonably well pleased with the result of the Government's review committee. Its conclusion was a victory for common sense, which was welcome. It is a pity that it had to take 15 or 16 months to reach that conclusion because it caused a great deal of uncertainty among the staff and the interest groups which were closely following what was happening and which have a direct interest in forestry.
More than anything else, what strikes me about the 15 or 16 months of consideration by the review committee was the astounding degree of public support enjoyed by the Forestry Commission, as currently constituted. I do not refer only to interest groups such as the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the well-respected and well-organised pressure groups which we would expect to be in the vanguard of an argument involving the future of the Forestry Commission and the forestry industry. The general public also took a keen and legitimate interest. That was one of the signal lessons that we should all learn from the 15 months' work of the review committee.
As the House will know, the committee's remit was to examine the effectiveness of current incentives for forestry investment and the options for ownership and management. It was invited by the Government to make proposals for change and to examine ways to improve effectiveness. It was of great interest to me that the Government's eventual conclusion was, as we learned a day or so ago, that Forest Enterprise should stay in the public sector. It


would be of even greater interest to know exactly what reasoning led the review committee and the Government to reject the option to privatise.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister to be told that there is still continuing suspicion about the Government's long-term motives. The reasoning of the review committee is an important element in the consideration of what will happen in future and how convinced the Government are of the decision that they have announced. It remains a matter of serious concern that the review committee's report is to remain available only to Ministers. Any work that costs the taxpayer as much as £833,000—which I understand to be the total cost of the inquiry—should be made much more widely available, even if not published because it may be a weighty document containing a great deal of technical information that would make sense only to Ministers. It should certainly be made available in the House of Commons Library, in the Scottish Office and in forestry offices in other parts of the United Kingdom.
If it proves to be impossible to deal with questions raised by hon. Members at this hour of the morning, I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to undertake, where necessary, to write to hon. Members with considered answers.
I should also like to know why the consultation document has been delayed another 14 days. If the review has taken 15 or 16 months, and if the Government's announcement was made public in the past 24 hours, it is incumbent on the Government to explain why it takes another 14 days to publish a document on which the consultation will be based. Printing techniques these days can turn round such documents, even in large volume, within a few short hours, never mind two weeks or more. It heightens my suspicion that the Government are still uncertain about their long-term motives in their future disposals and dispositions for the Forestry Commission.
That in turn leads to the suspicion that the Government were obliged to reject full-blown privatisation by the sustained and massive public opposition that they encountered. The Secretary of State for Scotland's statement, useful and welcome as it was, lacked conviction and had no intellectual coherence. The Government's strategy for the future is still unclear. If that is not true, it is certainly true that many questions remain to be answered. The Minister may say that that is what the consultation period is about. If so, this debate is a useful start to that process.
I welcome the decision to retain Forest Enterprise in the public sector. It would be churlish to quibble about that. But the Government still have much work to do during the consultation process to persuade the public that that is not just a temporary staging post on the way to full privatisation which might be reviewed after the next election.
I know that the Minister has been harassed almost to death on water privatisation in Scottish towns. By the end of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill Standing Committee, he was beginning to persuade me that he meant what he said. The trouble is that, while some of us consider him to be an honest man, we are not prepared to accept that position from other Ministers. However, I detect a scepticism still that this is only a temporary stay of execution. The Government still have a job to do in the consultation process if they are to win their argument.
To be sustainable, and to provide the industry with the kind of stability that it requires, we need 20-year solutions.

The crop, as the Minister well knows, takes a long time to mature and planting grants and commercial decisions to plant have to be taken on a long-term basis. Any suggestion that this is a solution that will get the Government by the next few short years would not be good enough and would not meet the needs of the industry.
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State refer in his statement to the need for Forest Enterprise to be put on a more businesslike footing. I could not make a lot of sense of the sentences that followed that statement, which contained much rhetoric and management jargon about priorities, performance measures and cost and benefit programmes. It would be helpful if the Minister could give clear examples of what will be done differently when the new agency is set up from what happens now. That was not clear to me, despite my careful reading and re-reading of the Secretary of State's statement.
There are many kinds of next step agencies. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has identified about 96, so there is a range of steps towards an agency basis. The Government should and could help the discussion by making clear just what kind of agency they are moving towards.

Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he accept that the obfuscation in the Government's report may be hiding their real intention regarding a next steps agency in that the established criteria are commercial? We and the public fear that there is an accelerated disposal programme for forestry and land. We could obtain tonight, on behalf of the public, an assurance that that is not the case.

Mr. Kirkwood: Absolutely. That is a concise summary of the next paragraph of my speech, which I can now skip. That is the crux of the matter and I hope that the Minister will say something about it.
What kind of agency is the Secretary of State's statement offering? Will it still be directly responsible to the Secretary of State as the responsible departmental Minister? There have been rumours that the Government would create three or four agencies for the. United Kingdom's different constituent nations. The Secretary of State seemed to make it clear that the headquarters will not move from Edinburgh, which is welcome news. Will there be a direct link between Scottish Office Ministers and the Secretary of State once the agency is established?
The Secretary of State also made it clear that a new chief executive will be appointed. It is important to know the terms and conditions of his employment. There have been press reports that
demanding but deliverable performance targets will be set for this new chief executive.
One great advantage of resisting the Government proposal that could have embraced privatisation is the sustained and unwavering support for the campaign by the existing body's director general, commissioners and senior management staff.
Soon, new commissioners will be appointed or appointed afresh, and the current director general is due for retirement. Significant management personnel changes are almost inevitable. The Minister and the Government will have to give assurances that there is no hidden ministerial strategy to appoint to crucial positions particular persons with a hidden agenda, with the objective of ultimately moving towards privatisation or—as the hon. Member for


Dumbarton said—commercialisation in a way that would compromise other roles in the multi-role forest context and framework that we seek.
Will the new chief executive's terms and remit be made public before he is appointed? What thought has been given to what exposure the new agency will have to market testing exercises, which are being visited on many other next steps agencies? It is important to have answers to those questions so that the consultation process may proceed in an orderly and properly informed fashion.
As to the Borders district and south of Scotland region, which the Minister knows well, I am convinced—because I know the work that they do—that the people running that district and region under Mr. Gordon Cowie and his team need no lectures on improving efficiency. The 43,000 acres of Forestry Commission land that they oversee are managed extremely well. They run a tight ship, and it is hard to see how the new trading standards, arrangements or bodies that the Government propose will help those individuals to do their jobs any better in future than they have done them over the past 10 or 15 years. There has been a significant change in the way in which the commission has operated in the Borders forest district. It has been some 15 years since proper, full-time staff were appointed in any numbers. Local experience recently has seen much more insecure seasonal work introduced on a contracted, self-employed basis, with a steady erosion in the number of full-time jobs.
But for all of that, the Borders forest district makes an annual surplus in the region of £500,000 to £600,000. It is coherent in what it does. It has a good rapport with the local community, and management and staff work extremely well together. I cannot for the life of me see any obvious way in which increased efficiencies could be made. It would be a foolish person who said that no improvements could be made. I think that it does a good job and in a dedicated fashion.
The Minister will also know that the industry produces direct and indirect employment for thousands of his constituents as well as mine across the Borders region as a whole. It is a very significant industry in local employment terms. Indeed, I think that it would be safe to say that, short of the north of Scotland forestry region, the Borders and south of Scotland regions must have the most significant input of any forestry industry in any other part of the country in terms of its local economy and the contributions that it makes to the income and expenditure in the south of Scotland.
What procedure will be required to implement the new agency? Again, the Secretary of State's statement left important questions unanswered. Will the consultation document, which we are expecting in a couple of weeks, contain details of the precise steps that are necessary to create the new structure? If primary legislation is not necessary—I understand that that is so—will we have a chance, through statutory instruments or Orders in Council, to scrutinise or sanction what is eventually proposed? That is an important question.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds pointed out that, from previous procedures in creating the agencies, it envisages the whole agency being generated by the publication of a framework document. Will full details of any such document be made available during the

consultation so that we can see what procedures are to be used to set it up? Will Parliament get a chance at any stage to look at the remit, objectives and, crucially, the performance targets that the agency will be invited to address?
In all of that procedure, what is there to provide any degree of accountability other than that through occasional requests to visit and give evidence to Select Committees and the like? What transparency will there be, for example, in the hierarchy between Ministers, the chief executive and Parliament?
I press the Minister on the meaning of his desire that Forest Enterprise should have a more commercial attitude. What implications will that have for research? I know that there are worries that some of the research functions—I know that some of them are carried out by the authority, not the enterprise—will go to the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology. There is also concern that the more commercial attitude will have an impact on the valuable interpretation and educational work that is currently done by Forest Enterprise. One thing that I discovered while increasing my education about bat boxes was the very valuable role that is played by Forest Enterprise in holding the ring between conflicting and competing users of forest land. Some of the fragile heath land that the Forestry Commission looks after in areas around Christchurch and Bournemouth was beginning to come under pressure from orienteering. That was in conflict with the conservation interests about some of the species that were under pressure. The Forestry Commission was the only institution capable of resolving in good faith some of the conflicting and competing uses of the areas of fragile heath land in its charge. It is feared that, if Forest Enterprise adopts a more commercial attitude in the future, all the valuable roles that it now plays will be sacrificed.
If the new agency is given genuine flexibility to retain all the surpluses that it would gain from disposal, and the finance that it needs to be able to acquire substantial tracts of land as well as disposing of forestry land and estates, that will be very welcome: it will make the agency much more efficient, and promote multi-purpose forestry. But if increased commercial pressure amounts to nothing more than losing public benefits, stripping out amenity developments, imposing higher charges on the public for services, reducing the percentage of broadleaf planting or more and faster disposals, the new agency will rapidly lose the critical mass that is necessary for it to retain its crucial role as a forestry leader.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton made an important point about commercial objectives. It would be regrettable if they began to override environmental objectives; that would affect staff morale, and the new agency would simply bring about the death of Forest Enterprise by means of a salami technique—death by a thousand cuts.
I am sorry that nothing more definite has yet been said about the disposals policy that is to be handed to the agency for implementation—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): It has not changed.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is interesting. We have heard all sorts of rumours, but I think we can all agree that some 180,000 hectares have been sold since the early 1980s. There is a rumour that 100,000 hectares will be required to be disposed of by the year 2000; indeed, either the


Ramblers Association or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds mentioned 37,000 hectares annually. If the Minister is really saying that nothing has changed, I think that we should have a discussion. The consultation period should be used as an opportunity to press the Government to clarify their plans.
All the small parcels of land that can be disposed of easily have already been sold. Any reactivated disposals policy would mean wholesale blocks of established forest being put on the market. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton will probably know better than me, the Kilpatrick Hills area just north of Glasgow has been talked of as a major disposal. Indeed, the whole of Upper Nithsdale, much closer to home in the Minister's patch —he shakes his head—has been mentioned in terms of marketing in the recent past. If the Treasury targets are too strict in future and the new agency is given no flexibility, other forest areas will have to be sold to meet arbitrary financial targets and for no other reason.
I remind the Minister that the sub-committee of his own review team that looked into the question of access for the public concluded:
As the disposals programme proceeds it will be necessary for the Forestry Commission to identify for disposal a greater number of woods with higher levels of existing access".
That key question will have to be considered during the consultation.
The £4 million extra in grants to be made available to the private sector is, of course, welcome and necessary, but I was interested to note Tilhill's response to the Secretary of State's statement:
The Statement wishes an end to the decline in conifer planting. We do not think conifer planting will increase from the present level as a result of this Review. This means that the UK forest output will not be sustained as timber volumes fall after the next twenty years.
That is an important reaction, albeit initial, from a serious player in the forestry game. The Government should view it with some interest.
I want to make two short points about grants. The new agency must be set clear targets and be given a clear steer in terms of what it does with the consultation processes that have to be undertaken with local communities before large blocks of monoculture sitka spruce are planted. There is a fear that some of the new grants will provide planting of commercial conifers on sensitive upland ground.
The environmental panels have been working well and the environmental impact statements are addressing many of the concerns that were evident four or five years ago. However, there are remaining fears that in some parts of the Borders at least the forest plantation is obliterating archaeologically important sites and destroying the quality of the border hillside. If the agency is not made aware of that and does not take proper account of it, it will cause concern in areas such as southern Roxburghshire.
The new grant regime does not provide enough scope or incentive for integrated farm forestry schemes. I know that the farm woodland scheme has been quite successful and has made some progress in promoting broadleaf amenity woods, but there is very little commercially viable timber production. I urge the Government, during the consultation period, to consider carefully providing a lead and a proper system of grants that would make it worthwhile for upland farmers—relatively small-scale farmers, not just big estate owners—to plant commercially viable holdings.
Although it is welcome that the short rotational coppice has been given some assistance and recognition under the

grant scheme—there was a sentence or two about it in the Secretary of State's statement—I am a little worried about the reduction in planting grants for short rotational coppice on non-set-aside land. It is fair to say that the production of power from biomass, including short rotational coppice, is still an infant industry. It is nearing commercialisation, but it is in need of pump-priming finance to see it through its formative years. The Secretary of State's statement did not persuade me that the Government are doing enough to address the extent of the problems.
I make no apology for leaving the question of access to the end because it is probably the key question motivating most of the public who will take an interest in the consultation process. I detect considerable disappointment at the lack of real progress on access. The Secretary of State said that the Government wanted to
strengthen the arrangements which are available to protect existing access".—[Official Report, 19 July 1994; Vol. 247, c. 178.]
That is a meaningless statement because the current arrangements are non-existent. The Government's own research by the sub-committee on access concluded:
Even with improvements the existing arrangements cannot be made effective in protecting continued public access.
That is right and it is important that the Government know that.
Only two days ago I received a letter from Mrs. Ann Fraser. She is a serious person and is the Scottish access officer of the British Horse Society. She lives in Jedburgh and she has helped me enormously with continuing correspondence about the problems of equestrian access to forests. I declare a non-pecuniary interest in this. It was a painful interest at the Hawick common riding because I came off at full tilt in one of the first fields at the Moss Paul ride out. When I get the time, I enjoy access to Forestry Commission forests on horseback.
Mrs. Fraser is at pains to point out in the letter dated 18 July that there is a current argument about Spottiswoode at Westruther in Berwickshire where about 50 horses currently use the area. The forest is owned by the Forestry Commission and on two occasions the wood has been offered to Borders regional council under the continued public access guidelines, giving it the opportunity to get the management procedures in place for continued public access after a sale. Both the offers have been declined by Borders regional council. The Minister may say that that is because of the legal expenses and that that has now been addressed by the Government.
However, the problem is worse than that because, as the Minister knows, public access guidelines do not cover horse riding. Such activities, which take place exclusively and expressly with individual permissions, do not fall within the scope of normal public access agreements. That is a matter of some concern in an area such as the Borders, which has a great interest in equestrian activity. There are about 100 horses in the Spottiswoode forest. Indeed, at Westertoun, Mr. and Mrs. Isles run an excellent trekking and equestrian business for locals and visitors, and that is exactly the type of business that might be prejudiced if we do not sort out the issue of access.
During the consultation process, we have to ask the Government what will happen if local authorities do not or cannot make access agreements when sales are contemplated. The system has not worked until now, so why should it work in the future? What will happen if a local authority does not enter into an agreement concerning


woodland that it has been proposed should be sold? Will continued access be at the whim of the new owner, or will the woodland be withdrawn from sale?
Where will the £ 1 million needed to buy the leasehold interest come from? Will it have to come from increased disposals or from the Treasury? Will the money to be spent on the central Scottish woodland, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland referred, come from increased disposals or from the Treasury? These are important questions, and the Minister would do the consultation process a considerable favour if he answered them, if not tonight, by correspondence.
The Government should now produce a national forestry strategy, including wildlife, access and environmental targets, which would map out the positive future which the forestry and woodland industry deserve and which the public demand.

Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate, but I must say that I was not flushed with excitement when I was told that it was to take place at 4 am. However, the debate is pertinent for a number of reasons, not least because the Government have this week issued a statement on forestry. I shall concentrate on a few matters: first, the history of the interdepartmental group; secondly, the disposal programme; and, thirdly, access agreements, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
A number of points arose from the statement made the other day by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is deplorable that the consultation document was not issued at the same time as the statement. I was informed on Tuesday morning that the statement was not in its final form but was being hastily rearranged—that is perhaps proof of the lack of clarity in the Government's approach to the whole issue.
Will the Minister tell us how long the consultation period will be? Will he answer the query from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the interdepartmental review group document? Why, after £860,000, I think, was spent on it, is the document not to be published? How transparent are the aims and objectives of the next steps agency?
I said that I would deal with history, so let us go back to the previous general election. On 3 April 1992—six days before the election—the Prime Minister sent a letter to the forestry unions' action group. He wrote that there was
no intention to privatise the Forestry Commission.
On 11 May 1992, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), told the House:
We have given a firm commitment not to privatise the Forestry Commission."—[Official Report, 11 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 470.]
However, on 5 July of the same year the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), wrote a confidential letter—I have it here—to the Secretary of State for Scotland in which he revealed that privatisation was being actively considered. He wrote:

I am inclined to favour option two in the Forestry Commission paper, despite the difficulties to which you"—
that is, the Secretary of State for Scotland—
referred in your February letter. Although there would be hurdles to overcome, the key benefits are that it would raise money and get the forest estate out of the public sector … I would also like to suggest that if we decided to look into the option further we should go on to consider the possibility of abolishing the Forestry Commission in due course, and absorbing the forestry authority's policy functions into the Agriculture Departments".
It transpires that, at that stage, apart from the ideological reasons, there was a purely financial reason for the sale, and there was also a bit of empire building for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is not universally known as a guardian of the wider public interest.
As a postscript to the Prime Minister's letter to the forestry unions, on 27 August the Prime Minister's office sent another letter, correcting the April letter and explaining that
the commitment given by the Prime Minister on this matter was drafted incorrectly during the frenzied activity of the general election campaign.
That shows that whatever the Conservatives say in their manifesto they can change a few months later. My goodness, how many times have we seen the Government do that over the past few years?
All that led to the setting up of the interdepartmental review group of officials on March 30, to
review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands and to make proposals for changes".
When I mentioned the desire to dispose of the Forestry Commission and take it out of public hands, I think that I heard a Conservative Member murmur, "Hear, hear." But in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom there was a massive outcry against the Government's proposals. I see the campaign that has forced the Government to back down from their naked objective of securing privatisation as a victory for public campaigning across all parties and all interest groups. That is most important.
I shall quote just one individual on that subject—Mr. Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, a friend of the Minister and other Members of Parliament, who is chairman of the Red Deer Commission. He had the interests of the land in mind when he said:
This may be public suicide. I may be sacked to-morrow"—
that is, from his chairmanship of the Red Deer Commission—
But the Government is talking rubbish about privatising the commission. What is going on is ridiculous, a struggle for power, political dogma … We have to say loud and clear that we don't like this dogma, that we won't have it pushed down our throat and that our political administrators need a psychiatrist … Selling off assets is a funny way to run a country".
Those words were true then, and they- are still true now. Selling assets is indeed a funny way to run a country—and we are still faced with the same problem.
I hope that I shall not do the Minister any political injury when I congratulate him on his stewardship of the Forestry Commission over the past year. I know that he realises the benefits of retaining the Forestry Commission in public hands and I know that a rearguard action has had to be undertaken by the Scottish Office on the issue.
After the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Tuesday, there was considerable relief that the Government have had second thoughts about the wholesale privatisation for a number of reasons. However, the Scottish public and the United Kingdom public still have


many pertinent questions to ask about the present situation. There is still suspicion that forest management will be based solely on narrow commercial principles and that that may yet lead to the planting of more blanket swathes of conifers. There is also concern about the private ownership that has become an increasing feature of forestry over the past 11 or 12 years, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said. Land disposal has taken place and more than 25,000 acres have now been sold in Scotland.
From experience, we know that private ownership frequently leads to a denial of access. The Forestry Commission has previously been criticised, but during my visits to, and discussions with, conservation groups, recreational groups and local authorities, they have pointed to the fact that, especially in the past decade, the Forestry Commission has proved much more astute. It has learnt to serve the needs of industry without alienating the public interest. It has adopted a proper and responsible attitude to community, recreational and environmental interests. Tree planting is nowadays undertaken in sympathy with the lie of the land and broadleaved trees, such as oak, ash, rowan and birch, which are traditional species in the Scottish forests, are introduced to soften the geometrical patterns of the land. A lot of good work has taken place, but we must remember that 250,000 acres of forestry land could be sold off by the end of the century.
The Secretary of State for Scotland could be described as Britain's head forester because he is in charge of the forest portfolio throughout the United Kingdom. The Scottish Office has an extremely important role to play. There is still a robust role for it in fighting against the disposal of land. There must be resistance to the Treasury's wish for a quick profit from the sale of valuable estates over the coming years.
Although this is, I imagine, the first time that the Government have backed down over privatisation in 15 years, we still have to strike a note of caution because, although the statement by the Secretary of State on Tuesday was welcome, a number of issues are still of great concern to us. Let us consider his comment that
Our conclusion is that, at this stage of their development, the Forestry Commission woodlands should remain in the public sector.
Why in the name of goodness was the phrase
at this stage of their development
put into the statement? One can only surmise.

Sir Hector Monro: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered that point yesterday.

Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State did not answer satisfactorily. That is the whole point.

Sir Hector Monro: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. McFall: I agree that it is a matter of opinion, but I point out to the Minister that no Opposition Member believed that the point was answered. It is clear from the newspapers today that few members of the press believe that the point was answered. When the Secretary of State said:
at this stage of their development"— [Official Report, 19 July 1994; Vol 247, c. 177]
did he mean that, two or three years down the line, the Forestry Commission will be reviewed again?
Earlier, I quoted the Minister saying that the Government had no intention of privatising the Forestry Commission, yet they set up an interdepartmental review

because of the pressure from other Departments. There was pressure from the Department of the Environment and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, among others. The Minister cannot sit there, even at 4 o'clock in the morning, and deny that. I congratulate him on resisting the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. What concerns the Opposition and other people is that that resistance will have to be maintained.
In the statement, the Secretary of State also mentioned that a trading body would be established as a next steps agency and would deal at arm's length with other parts of the Commission. We know the situation with regard to other bodies which have been established as next steps agencies to "deal at arm's length". What that means in parliamentary terms is that when a Member of Parliament writes a letter, instead of a direct answer from a Minister, there is a response from a chief executive. All we have to go on is that simple answer from the chief executive; we cannot probe or clarify the aims and objectives of the agency and the criteria on which it is operating. That gives us no element of succour in terms of the Secretary of State's statement.
The Secretary of State also referred to the Forestry Commission meeting legal costs incurred by local authorities in making access agreements. That is a totally inadequate response to the issue of access agreements. It is still the case that if land is sold and put into public hands, access agreements are not established. If I understand the Select Committee's report on forestry correctly, it mentions one access agreement in England and Wales but no agreement in Scotland, so effectively no access agreements have yet been established. It is a bit simple and superficial for the Secretary of State to say that giving the Forestry Commission some resources to meet legal costs will overcome the issue of access agreements because the problem is much greater than that. We need much more information on that issue.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned the disposal of land. It is a fact that land has been disposed of since 1981. Over the past decade, there has been a campaign to stop the sale of forest land. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that more than 8,000 acres of land in Upper Nithsdale near Sanquhar in Dumfries— the Minister's area—have been disposed of. Further disposal was stopped only after successful intervention by the Ramblers Association working in co-operation with local community interests. The land would have been sold but for the fact that the local community got together and campaigned against it.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Kilpatrick Hills, which I know extremely well because most of the 4,000 acres which are about to be disposed of are in my constituency. Much of the land encompasses the Loch Lomond area. Although the Government established a working party to examine the issue of the conservation of Loch Lomond and planning for its future, and although the report of Sir Peter Hutchison's working party stated that its understanding from the Scottish Office was that there would be no disposal of land in that area until the Secretary of State had come back with a statement as to the future of Loch Lomond, the Government have allowed the Forestry Commission to go ahead with the sale of 4,000 acres of that precious land.
In another area, delay in doing something about Loch Lomond is doing little for the environment or for public


safety. The Government have an obligation to come out with a definitive statement on the issue. The sale of the Kilpatrick land involved 4,000 acres of precious Forestry Commission woodland. Again, a local campaign was taken up when it was discovered that Cluttons of Edinburgh was selling that land. I shall quote from a memorandum from Dawn McNiven of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh to Bill Wright of the Ramblers Association in Scotland. It says:
You asked for a written note on the above"—
Kilpatrick Hills—
Owing to the failure of four of the five lots to achieve a satisfactory offer, we have decided to temporarily withdraw all five lots of woodlands from the market.
The sale aroused considerable public comment, and this may have had an effect on potential purchasers. We intend to bring the woods back to the market once conditions have changed.
I assure the Minister that if that happens, public opposition will be maintained so that we keep that land in public ownership.
In the past couple of years, the Minister has engaged in double-speak on access agreements. On 29 January 1994, the Minister was interviewed on Radio Scotland about Forestry Commission woods—at a far more civilised time between 7 am and 8 am—and he stated:
I think the point you are really making is that those that have been sold to individuals or to private companies with a binding agreement on access, I think in truth the law cannot be continued to a second purchaser.
The interviewer went on to ask:
So the first purchaser at the moment can make a very quick profit by selling it on to a chum somewhere down the line?
The Minister replied:
 That would be possible, yes.

Sir Hector Monro: But very improbable.

Mr. McFall: The Minister said:
That would be possible, yes.
For the past 15 years, I have kept a close eye on the Government and such a reply is as good as them accepting that that could happen. The Minister has therefore acknowledged that if a second purchaser takes over woods, access agreements cannot be guaranteed.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair. He should quote from the rest of that interview, in which I explained carefully that the whole purpose of management agreements with local authorities is that they last in perpetuity. It is important to reach such agreements to ensure that the legal problem of access is not encountered on the second sale.

Mr. McFall: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but if the individual who purchased the land wished to sell after six months, no one could stop that person. The Minister has now told us that no public access agreement can be guaranteed. At the moment, the Forestry Commission operates a right-to-roam policy and the public make 50 million visits a year to its land. If the piecemeal disposal programme continues, the issue of public access will become an issue of ever-greater importance to the public, because they will understand that, progressively, they may be denied access to the hills.
The Minister has offered us no comfort, particularly when we consider that no access agreements have been

signed between a local authority and a private landlord. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State failed to respond to that issue, which is still to the fore in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has already referred to multi-purpose forestry. In August, when the opposition to the Forestry Commission sell-off was at its height, I was invited to visit the Caledonian Paper Mill Company's plant at Irvine. That company has made a £250 million investment in Scotland and employs 430 people at the plant. It was concerned about long-term stability in the forestry and wood processing industry. That company and other industrialists told me that the Forestry Commission should stay in public hands because no long-term guarantee of supply could be offered if woods were in private hands. Whether one is talking to recreational, environmental or industrial groups, the message is the same: it is important to the keep the Forestry Commission in public hands.
Last year, the Labour party undertook a forestry privatisation survey and contacted every local authority in the United Kingdom. There was a 100 per cent. response from Scottish local authorities. They were unanimous in their belief that privatisation was not the way forward. The Dumfries and Galloway regional council, which has responsibilities in the Minister's constituency, responded as follows:
Privatisation would be damaging to the nation's economic interests as well as placing at risk current public rights to access and recreation.
Even in the area that the Minister represents, his words on access do not ring true. The council continued:
There might also be damage to local processors, mainly saw mills, if they are to rely on future supplies from multinational companies with purely commercial objectives. The present continuity of supply would certainly be threatened.
Every local authority in Scotland said that it wished the Forestry Commission to remain in public hands.
The need for a long-term policy for forestry is extremely important. After all, an oak tree that was planted in 1919, when the Forestry Commission was founded, will even now barely have reached middle age. We are one of the least afforested nations in Europe. There is only 10 per cent. woodland cover in Britain, with 7 per cent. in England. Our European partners have an average of 25 per cent. The need to continue to pursue the current long-term strategy is extremely important.
The Royal Scottish Forestry Society, in its submission to the review group and in criticism of possible privatisation, said
that sudden change for political or other reasons forced onto an unwilling organisation would cause instability to both private and State forest enterprises.
The society set out its concerns about the long-term disruptive effect on the forestry staff—their recruitment and training—and said that a
piecemeal 'sell off would be the worst of all worlds, with loss of jobs with a complete disruption of the woodland market, resulting in only the best forests being sold at 'rock-bottom' prices.
We ask the Minister to take into account this wise counsel about piecemeal sales. Despite the Secretary of State's statement on Tuesday, the issue has not been addressed. It will result in a severe problem in future.
The Conservative party's 1992 manifesto gave a clear promise to guarantee public access to a forest when the land was sold off. As with all its manifesto commitments, nothing could have been further from the truth. We were told by Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries


and Food that further restrictions to Forestry Commission land would be fiercely resisted. In the light of the Under-Secretary's remarks, the only way to resist further restrictions to public access is to bring an immediate end to the Government's policy of back-door forestry privatisation.
I join the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in pressing the Government on the issue. The Secretary of State's statement on Tuesday was far from reassuring. Pertinent issues remain to be considered. The Government are backing down on the privatisation proposal but they have done little to reassure the public that their long-term intentions are good.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for initiating this important debate. Like him, I would welcome reform of the procedures of the House so that we did not have to debate such matters at 5 o'clock in the morning. I must be well and truly sucked into the system to be standing here now.
The Forestry Commission's future is a subject close to my heart and the hearts of many of my constituents. Some 12 per cent. of my constituency of Christchurch, in east Dorset, is Forestry Commission-owned land and the New Forest is on our doorstep. When I was elected last year, I conducted a survey among my constituents and found that a large majority of them regularly walk in our local woodlands. That is not surprising given the wealth of opportunity that we have to do that locally, with Ringwood forest, the Moors Valley country park, Hum commons and part of the Avon valley in the area. All those places are owned by the Forestry Commission, so it is understandable that I feel so strongly about this issue.
Like many other hon. Members, I listened with interest to the Secretary of State for Scotland's statement on Tuesday. The news that the Forestry Commission would not be privatised was hardly Westminster's best kept secret; it had been announced on the television news and in The Times in May, and in The Scotsman in April. Nevertheless, I was relieved to hear the Secretary of State confirm it in the House, and the 4,500 people in my constituency who signed a petition against privatising the Forestry Commission feel likewise.
The decision not to privatise the Forestry Commission is wise. The future of our woodlands does not lie in the private sector. The delicate balance between the commercial use of forestry, the public right of access and environmental protection and conservation can best be kept by a body that is publicly owned and accountable to Parliament and the public through Ministers. In contrast, a Forestry Commission plc would be accountable primarily to its shareholders, whose interest in the land would be overwhelmingly commercial. Without all-encompassing regulation and strict control, which would be impractical and make the commission unattractive to investors, the profit motive would run rampant over the public interest and the delicate balance that now prevails would be lost, possibly irretrievably.
I know from first-hand experience how that delicate balance between the different areas is kept. I visited the Moors Valley area in my constituency and was shown round by two members of the Forestry Commission staff. One who was interested in conservation showed me the

work that the commission was doing in bringing back Dorset heath land, which is an important natural habitat. It was also impressive to go round with the employee responsible for the commercial side and see the tremendous pains to which the commission has gone to protect the environment at the same time as selling off our woodlands.
Despite the Secretary of State's announcement, the future of the Forestry Commission and the land that it currently owns is still a matter of great concern to me. The implication of his remarks on Tuesday was that privatisation was by no means ruled out as an option for the future. Indeed, when questioned, the Secretary of State said that there was "no intrinsic reason" for Forestry Commission woodlands to stay in public ownership.
The decision to turn Forest Enterprise into a next steps agency could be regarded as a staging post towards privatisation in the future. Even if it is not, the Secretary of State admitted that the new agency would be "at arm's length" from the rest of the commission. As has already been said, it will become even harder to hold the Forestry Commission's management wing accountable to Parliament.
The Secretary of State also said that there will be demanding but deliverable performance targets. That sounds as though the Government will demand profit and the agency will deliver land to the private sector to get it. Will those performance targets include targets for levels of public access? Will those performance targets include targets for the preservation of animal habitats, and rare species and plants? That is especially important in my constituency, where there are Dorset heath land areas. Will those performance targets include targets for the planting of deciduous trees rather than the block planting of conifers, which are often preferred by the private sector because they are more profitable, but add to acid pollution and often destroy wildlife habitats? I strongly hope that the Minister's answer to all those questions will be yes, and that the Government performance targets are not simply profit targets.
I know that the forestry industry is an important one for much of Britain, and I fully realise that the commission plays an important economic role in many areas. Nevertheless, there is a balance to be kept between that role, and access and conservation, which up to now has been kept fairly successfully. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me and other hon. Members and our constituents that performance for the Forest Enterprise agency will mean very much more than simply how much money can be made out of our woodlands, and that any "targets" that it is set will take those points into account.
The Forestry Commission has an admirable record on conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned his visit to a neighbouring constituency of mine, and he told you about bat boxes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Forestry Commission has also been involved with bird boxes. However, my hon. Friend did not tell you about the bumble boxes to be found in Wareham forest, in an effort to save the British bumblebee.
The commission also has a good record on public access, and I make no apologies for making similar points about that. That is the issue about which people are most worried. We know that, when woodlands are sold off, access is almost always lost. In spite of the Government's much-trumpeted initiatives in 1991 to try to protect access,


I have been informed that only 19 agreements have been obtained from a total of 544 sales in the two years after that. Public access has been lost to 83,700 acres, and that can be added to the 345,000 acres to which public access had been lost in the previous nine years.
I welcome the fact that the Government have now recognised that that state of affairs cannot continue. I look forward to studying the promised measures when they are at last published. I hope that there will be great encouragement of public access when the commission disposes of its land.
When I read the document that we hope will arrive soon, I shall be especially interested in the proposals on how we shall pay the costs of public access. I say that as someone who came to this place from local government. I know too well the way in which local government may be promised help to pay for things, but cash does not always arrive. Permission may have been given to borrow, rather than money being forthcoming. I welcome, however, the fact that the Government recognise that it is important for local authorities to be involved in that, and I would back them whole-heartedly on that.
The most unfortunate fact is that, while the forestry review group has been sitting, while the Government have been considering its findings, while they have been producing a consultation document that we have yet to see, and while they consult on it and finally implement any changes, new woodlands are being put on the market. In the next 12 months, a further 25 acres are scheduled for disposal.
I ask the Government, why is that being allowed to happen? They are allowing it to happen in the full knowledge that people will lose the right of access to that land. I believe that the Government should halt the sales until new measures are in place, so that we do not lose any more access. I should very much like much more openness to surround sales of Forestry Commission land. It is difficult for ordinary members of the public to find out what land is on the market.
The piecemeal sell-off of much of the Forestry Commission's land is happening at a time when there is an expanding demand for timber world wide that we should be helping to meet. The Government's grant proposals show that they have recognised that, but, as I think we have all said this morning, the need to maintain access is becoming more and more important because the amount of leisure time that the average person now enjoys has greatly increased. We are all aware of the importance of woodland to the global environment, especially in our hydrological cycles and in combating global warming. Our forests are one of our greatest natural assets, and the Forestry Commission is the guardian of many of our most precious woodlands.
Many people will have been encouraged by the Secretary of State's statement, but we now have to see if the detail in the consultation document matches up to some of the expectations that have been raised by that statement. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will be looking hard at the consultation document. I know that my constituents will be looking at it very closely. I hope that the Minister will take a hard look at the submissions that come in during the consultation process.
I shall end with a few words for the Minister from one of my constituents. She speaks on behalf of the Verwood and district rambling club. Verwood is quite a small town in my constituency, but nevertheless the rambling club has 140 members. The letter was sent partly in response to a letter sent to me from the Minister which I sent to my constituent. She was not too happy with the initial letter, and said in her letter:
I trust my suspicions are unfounded and that when the statement is issued we will find that common sense prevails. This land belongs to the people. Let's keep it that way.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am glad to respond to the debate, and am only sorry that Opposition Members have left me so little time to do so.
The House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a detailed statement on Tuesday in which he outlined the Government's approach to forestry in the light of their consideration of the forestry review group's report. I think that it received a general welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House with the exception, surprisingly, of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He attacked what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said, but seemed to be totally out of step with almost everybody else in the House. However, I believe that his conscience may have made him realise that there was a great deal of good in what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.
I appreciate the situation as well as many and probably better than most because my constituency is one of the most afforested areas in the United Kingdom. I have a high regard for the Forestry Commission and its staff, as well as for the private forestry groups that are equally important in providing timber for the long-term future. It is important to realise, particularly when we consider the planting grant increases that we announced on Tuesday, that we are concerned to ensure that there is an adequate supply for the major processing plants that have developed in the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, in recent years. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, those plants are anxious to have long-term contracts. I hope that they will be able to achieve that under the plans that we have announced. In Ayrshire, Inverness-shire and Stirlingshire there are processing plants of immense importance, not only because of their products, but because they provide employment, often in areas with relatively sparse opportunities.
This year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the commission, and it is appropriate to begin by considering its achievements. Opposition Members have tried to spread alarm, and despondency tonight. Many of the issues they raised were hypothetical and far from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said or what is intended.
Planting by the Forestry Commission and its support for private sector planting have resulted in the level of forest cover in Britain being doubled to reach 2.2 million hectares, more than 10 per cent. of the total land area. Wood production from the commission's forests is now more than 4 million tonnes a year, up 60 per cent. since 1980, with a further 50 per cent. increase expected by the year 2005. That wood production now supports many jobs in the wood processing sector. Over the last few years processing has enjoyed new investment of more than £1


billion. Examples of that are Caledonian Paper, Iggesund in north-west England and Shotton Paper company in Wales.
In addition, we should not forget the sawmilling developments. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has some in the Borders and I have some in my constituency. They are often located in small communities and thus provide an important boost to rural employment.
Under the Government's approach of multiple-purpose forestry, the commission's work is not simply restricted to wood production and encouraging investment in timber processing. Its responsibilities also include its important work in recreation and conservation. It is estimated that about 50 million people visit the commission's forests each year. It has developed an impressive range of facilities for visitors, including 671 picnic places, 751 forest walks and nature trails—those of us from Scotland well know the Southern Upland way and the Queen Elizabeth way—and a large number of cycle trails, visitor centres and forest gardens. The commission also operates a successful holiday business renting out forest cabins and providing camping and caravan sites.
I would not want to miss out the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) from my remarks. I can confirm that the Forestry Commission is extremely interested in conservation of all sorts. I know Canford Heath, Verwood and the other areas she mentioned Many of them are sites of special scientific interest—especially Canford Heath—and are therefore protected. The commission takes a great interest in habitat, conservation and the encouragement of all sorts of wildlife. Those who last night heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—the Minister for the Environment and Countryside—talking about our future plans for conservation will know that he highlighted all those points and stressed how important it is to look after our countryside.
Not surprisingly, an estate of more than 1 million hectares is a key national resource for nature conservation. The commission's nature conservation initiatives include 400 sites of special scientific interest, which cover 80,000 hectares. There are also the habitat projects, 250 wildlife rangers and forest design plans to co-ordinate production conservation and recreational uses.
Last but not least, the commission is custodian of some of the great British forests such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, which are linked to great events in our history and whose continued maintenance and development provide a tangible link to our past.
I must put on record a response to some of the points raised. It is wrong to say that the Government have done a U-turn. It is difficult to get into the heads of some Opposition Members that a consultation period means just that. We set out all the options and, having listened to all the arguments, we reach a conclusion. I find it incomprehensible that Opposition Members jump to conclusions before they have consulted. They were exactly the same on the issue of water. They said that Scotland's water would be privatised. We are not privatising Scotland's water; it is remaining in the public sector. Nor are we disconnecting supplies to domestic premises.

Mr. Kirkwood: Publish the report.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position. He knows full well, because he must have heard the reason a thousand and one times, why the Quayle-Monro report is not being published. It is exactly the same with the report of the forestry review group. Hon. Members should understand that papers containing commercial judgments are not and never have been published. The hon. Member for Dumbarton loves dishing out confidential documents, as he did tonight, but I cannot comment on them. The hon. Gentleman should have a greater sense of responsibility than to proceed by leaks.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made a constructive speech. The details of the agency will be spelt out in the consultative document that will be published shortly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no accelerated programme of disposals. He should know that we started out with the intention to sell 100,000 hectares and we are almost halfway towards achieving that and expect to do so by the year 2000. There is no intention to increase that figure.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said time and again that now that we have considered the access issue and received the report of the access sub-committee, which I accept was disappointing, we shall be careful about what parcels of forest are put on the market. Sensitive areas and areas that are used frequently by the public will not be in the disposal programme unless we can obtain an access agreement from the local authority. That is why we have put £1 million into the proposals that we announced yesterday—to assist with the legal charges and other aspects and to buy out the leasehold of Forestry Commission woodlands that are subject to leasehold and so not free for access as the rest of its woodlands are.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is a helpful answer. From where does the £1 million that the Minister has just mentioned come? Is it a Treasury grant, or will it come from the Forestry Commission's own resources?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman can work it out however he wishes. It will come from the trees that are sold and less will go to the Treasury. It will go to the operations to help with access and the grants, which is an important issue. Less money will go to the Treasury and more will be put back into the Forestry Commission, either through planting grants to the private sector or towards making access more available.

Mr. McFall: Will the Minister give 'way?

Sir Hector Monro: I have only four or five minutes, so I must hurry on.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said—after all, it is his -debate—about the South of Scotland Conservancy Council and Mr. Gordon Cowie, whom I know well and who is doing an excellent job. That is why I am so pleased that the Forestry Commission is staying as it is with the addition of the next steps agency in order to increase the commercial aspect of the enterprise. The authority will carry on looking, as ever, to be more efficient and to include the scientific aspects that have been mentioned.
Interestingly enough, I went recently with Gordon Cowie to south-west Scotland to see the devastation of plantations by fire. That is a serious issue that we must consider. Half a million pounds worth of timber is burnt in a day, some by vandals and some by careless walkers in the


woods. We must be careful about that in the spring when there is little green cover and the timber is particularly dry, as it was in May this year.
I have said how proud we are of SSSIs, which are important to the Forestry Commission. There is great co-operation between Scottish Natural Heritage, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission. All work well in harmony. It is interesting how they are developing their work together.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton mentioned Loch Lomond and safety. We put into the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill the very issue that we are trying to achieve of speeding up the by-laws for water sport.

Mr. McFall: As to Loch Lomond, I mentioned the possible sale of 4,000 acres of Kilpatrick Hills. Sir Peter Hutchison's report, which I welcomed, referred to the disposal of land in the Loch Lomond area. Perhaps there could be a moratorium until the Secretary of State makes up his mind. Will the Minister consider that issue and write to me?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes. I indicated that careful consideration will be given to putting on the market areas of sensitive planting—and nothing could be more sensitive than the area around Loch Lomond. That is also true of the Kilpatrick Hills, where there is also a significant problem of access to extract the timber if it were sold. That is also on the back burner.
We must maintain a modest disposal programme to generate income to continue the Forestry Commission's overall business. We must not forget that it was established to provide sufficient timber for all sorts of purposes in this country, not for purely environmental reasons. I am glad that has developed because it is important that trees are matured and that we now have fine woodlands throughout the United Kingdom.
The House will have to await publication of the consultative document in a few weeks' time for much of the detail. There will be adequate time—at least until the end of October—for consultation and for people to give their views, if they differ from the document. We will listen adequately and carefully, as we did throughout the progress of the forestry review group. I must have written 1,000 letters to Members of Parliament on access. Of course I was aware how strongly they felt. In the same way that we listened in respect of water in Scotland, we listened carefully in relation to forestry and made the right decision. I was pleased because I think that it is the right way forward. I look forward to the results of the consultation document, so that the commission will know that it has a stable, long-term future—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when answering questions on his statement last Tuesday—and will not feel concerned about any of the scares—

The allotted time having expired, the debate was concluded in accordance with MADAM SPEAKER'S statement—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1197.]

Orders of the Day — Air Pollution (London)

Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, although I dare say that he could think of more joyful starts to his new job than addressing a cold and empty Chamber at 6 o'clock in the morning.
Twice in the past three weeks the Department of the Environment issued poor quality air alerts as photochemical smogs descended on many parts of Britain. The most recent case was Tuesday 12 July. Before that, peaks occurred over the weekend of 2 and 3 July. In London —the worst-hit area—ozone levels reached 95 parts per billion. According to the Department's health panel, they should average no more than 50 parts per billion.
That weekend, according to Today, hospitals reported a 20-fold or 30-fold increase in admissions of patients with breathing difficulties. Some hospitals in London and the south-east were so overloaded that they were running out of medicines to treat asthma sufferers.
It is ironical that those two poor air quality alerts coincided precisely with the inquiry into transport-related air pollution in London by the Transport Select Committee, of which I am a member. They were not without precedent. The most notorious air pollution incident in recent times was the photochemical smog in London on Friday 13 December 1993. Professor Ross Anderson of St. George's hospital conducted an investigation into the incident for the Department of Health. He said:
The death rate in London during that week was 10 per cent. higher than expected—equivalent to about 160 extra deaths.
There is now good medical evidence to suggest that increases in air pollutants such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulates—known as PM10s—are associated with the worsening of the symptoms and the number of attacks experienced by individuals with asthma and other respiratory disorders. And asthma is on the increase. Indeed, it is the only treatable chronic condition in the western world that is increasing in frequency and severity. The Government's figures published in April of this year show that levels of asthma have more than doubled in every region of England since 1979. Some 3 million British citizens now suffer from asthma. Some 2,000 people die from asthmatic attacks every year—with 80 per cent. of those deaths thought to be preventable. In total, there are some 100,000 hospital admissions for asthma each year. It is now the greatest single cause of hospital admissions, after heart disease and strokes.
The national asthma campaign has drawn our attention to the anomalous position whereby this major and treatable source of ill health in our society was not included in the Government's "Health of the Nation" strategy, published in 1992. Paradoxically, however, the Welsh Office has set targets for the reduction of asthma in the Principality. I very much hope that, as a matter of urgency, the Government will draw on the Welsh model and include in their "Health of the Nation" strategy targets for the reduction of asthma deaths and hospitalisations as well as for the management of asthma in schools and the community.
Such a development would certainly be more than welcome in the London area, for in the South West Thames regional health authority area, which covers part of London, the incidence of asthma rose by 164 per cent.


between 1979 and 1991. I am bound to say that those striking statistics are borne out in my own direct experience of case work in my south London constituency of Streatham. Indeed, so impressed was I by the number of parents referring to their children's asthma condition that I carried out a survey of the incidence of asthma among pupils at local primary and secondary schools in Streatham earlier this year. Sixteen of the 22 schools responding reported an increase in asthma over the past five years. In some cases, head teachers referred to dramatic increases over that period.
I am, of course, fully aware that the medical evidence, such as it is, points to the source of asthma in allergic reactions to such materials as pollen and household dust. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I consider it more than a coincidence that when Friends of the Earth carried out a seven-city survey of nitrogen dioxide levels in the UK in 1992 it found that the worst residential site was in Streatham—with a mean level of 58.5 parts per billion. The European Union's upper safety limit is 40 parts per billion.
That monitoring exercise was carried out in the very heart of Streatham, at St. Leonard's junction, on the A23 London to Brighton road, one of London's busiest and most congested thoroughfares. The simple fact is that road vehicles are the main contributor to air pollution in urban areas; and they are overwhelmingly the source of air pollution in London. In London, road vehicles have been estimated to contribute 75 per cent. of nitrogen dioxides —which also play a major role in ozone formation—some 95 per cent. of black smoke and virtually 100 per cent. of carbon monoxide.
In other words, if we are to improve air quality, to improve the condition of those with respiratory illnesses and, in practice, save lives, our overwhelming target must be the motor vehicle and the internal combustion engine. It is on the premise that the internal combustion engine can be cleaned up that the Government's response to the problem of air quality in London primarily depends.
Since the end of 1992 all new petrol-engine cars have been fitted with catalytic converters, although that still applies to only about 5 per cent. of cars on Britain's roads. Other European legislation, actual and anticipated, will have a marked impact on medium-term emissions of toxics from motor vehicles. Even on the most optimistic estimates, however, the impact of those measures will not be fully felt for another 10 to 15 years—not until the year 2010—and even those measures, which are intended to produce cleaner engines and fuels, throw up their own difficulties, contradictions and disadvantages.
Let us take catalytic converters, for example, and the problem of cold-start emissions. Catalytic converters do not function properly until they are warmed up, and they do not warm up until they have travelled 10 miles. Until that point, they produce more pollutants than traditional engines. Three quarters of car journeys in London measure just over six miles.
When conducting its air pollution inquiry, the Transport Select Committee received deeply alarming evidence on the possible effects of the high aromatics content of unleaded petrol. Unleaded and, to an even greater degree, super-unleaded petrol have been promoted as "green" fuels; yet, especially when used in non-catalysts, aromatics in petrol lead to emissions of carcinogenic materials that may be causing an increased incidence of cancers such as leukaemia. In the United States and Germany, steps are

already being taken to limit levels of benzene and aromatics way below British standards, although those countries use catalysts far more than the UK.
Only two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the price of diesel relative to leaded petrol and gave fleet car owners a tax incentive to run diesel cars. Diesel cars were deemed to be the "green" cars: more fuel-efficient, and a force against global warming. Now, however, new evidence of the link between particulates —PM10s—and mortality and morbidity have led the Government to decide that a precautionary approach, to use the technical expression, is needed.
A recent Department of the Environment report suggested that diesel vehicles account for some 30 per cent. of PM10 emissions from all sources. There is, to say the least, a question mark over the diesel engine. Let me add this, however: the London bus may be diesel-fuelled, but, while its seating capacity gives it an efficiency of at least 300 passenger miles per gallon of fuel compared with 20 for the private car, there is no doubt that the environmental advantage continues to lie with the London bus.
I have not cited those examples to mock, or to argue that the search for a cleaner, more efficient engine is a worthless endeavour; on the contrary, I have cited them to demonstrate that there is no guarantee for Londoners of a seamless progression to better air quality by the year 2010. The same development may remove but also create pollutants; there are no guarantees.
In any event, no one has seriously argued that it was ever possible to create an entirely clean, green internal combustion engine. That would be a contradiction in terms. But any improvements that may result from the introduction of catalytic converters will be progressively offset if individual car usage continues to grow on the scale predicted by the Government.
Six years ago, the Department of Transport's national road traffic forecast predicted that the total number of car miles was likely to increase by between 83 and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. The growth may be less in London than elsewhere, but the road system in many parts of London has already been effectively saturated for many years. Even a proportion of that projected growth would simply seize up the city. It would certainly overwhelm the Government's current pet scheme for traffic movement in London—the so-called red routes.
Traffic growth will mean continuing pollution and its inevitable consequence—slower traffic—will mean more pollution. That is an unattractive and dangerous prospect for Londoners. The conclusion is obvious: we need to stabilise and to reduce the number of cars on our roads. An essential condition for achieving that, however it is done —and the Government have already told us that they are giving serious consideration to congestion pricing—is a public transport system with proper investment. Obviously, that is not what Londoners are getting from the Government now.
Three years ago the Monopolies and Mergers Commission estimated that London Transport's annual investment requirement in order to provide an acceptably modern network stood at £750 million. This year, the capital grant to London Transport's core business stands at half that figure—£346 million. It will rise over the next two years to just over £500 million. That is well below the funding London Transport believes to be essential for what it calls a "bedrock" investment to maintain the system in


its present far from satisfactory state. A total of £600 million a year is required on the underground alone to achieve that purpose.
In other words, the Government are responding to the challenge of a growth in the number of cars and more pollution with a deteriorating public transport system in London. The time has come for firm hard choices and Labour has made them. The excellent report, published this week, by the party's policy commission on the environment, entitled "In Trust for Tomorrow", makes clear our commitment to cuts in the monstrously inflated roads programme in order to fund priority investment in public transport infrastructure and within the existing transport budget. I welcome that commitment, as will Londoners.
A multitude of useful measures may be taken to reduce transport-related air pollution in London, ranging from improved vehicle standards to better traffic management, and many are set out in Labour's report and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will refer to them in his speech. The Gordian knot which demands to be cut is that of car dependency. It must be done by an attractive, efficient and safe public transport system. The Labour party now offers a sensible and. realistic approach towards achieving that goal, and I am sure that Londoners will embrace it enthusiastically at the next general election.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) because it is a matter in which I have taken a great interest both before my election and since. It was within a few days of the previous general election that I had cause to write to the then Secretary of State for the Environment—he is now at the Home Office—saying that in my constituency, levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide already exceeded the World Health Organisation levels for sensitive vegetation and that reports carried out at that time for the east Thames councils, of all political hues, pointed to excessive levels of hydrogen chloride and predicted that those levels would rise considerably if the planned commercial and other combustion processes were to proceed in the area.
At that time, I pointed out that figures produced by Greenwich council and the director of public health for Bexley pointed to alarming levels of respiratory illness in the area. Some of that may have been due to pollutants from contaminated industrial processes and land uses, but the evidence pointed clearly to airborne pollution from emissions from industrial process and from vehicular traffic.
At the same time, permission had been given for a combined heat and power waste incineration plant in nearby Lewisham, and approval had been given for the Barking power station. Also under consideration were a proposal to build in Belvedere probably the largest waste incinerator in western Europe and proposals by Thames Water to build two sewage sludge incinerators, one on the north and one on the south bank of the Thames. There was also a proposal to build an enlarged power station in the

constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) which, fortunately, was withdrawn because of a public outcry.
Cory Environmental's proposal for the large waste incinerator was initially turned down after a public inquiry, but a new application is expected. No new planning consents should be granted for incineration processes within the east Thames corridor without a comprehensive study of the potential cumulative effects of all the current and proposed combustion processes in the area.
At the time of the inquiry into the Belvedere proposal, Professor Charles Howard of the foetal infant pathology department at the university of Liverpool gave evidence on behalf of BETTER—the Belvedere, Erith and Thamesmead Tackling Environmental Ruin campaign. Of the pollutants that would be produced in such a process, he said:
These chemicals cause, among other things, growth retardation in the womb, which can be shown to cause permanent damage to kidneys and reduce life expectancy.
I believe that there needs to be a thorough examination of the damage that could be caused by an increase in the number of combustion processes in the south-east Thames area.
In east London, the annual average sulphur dioxide levels already approach or meet EC guide values, as has been shown by the South East Institute for Public Health. However, it is not just the individual pollutants that cause the problem, but the effect of the pollutants acting together, or the synergistic action of pollutants that make up the lethal cocktail to which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham referred. There is clear evidence that ozone and higher nitrogen dioxide levels predispose individuals to a greater susceptibility to damage from other allergens such as pollen and fungal spores.
In an Adjournment debate last June, I had the opportunity to raise those matters. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment dismissed the problem of industrial processes and emissions by saying that they made
a relatively small contribution, at most about 17 per cent. of existing nitrogen dioxide concentrations.
He rejected the idea of a comprehensive study. I ask the Minister today to give serious consideration to that idea.
Agreement was reached on one point in our previous debate. The Minister agreed that vehicles accounted for the vast majority of annual average concentrations—about 70 per cent. in London. He said:
The motor car is the chief cause of the relatively high levels in nitrogen oxides in east London".— [Official Report, 10 June 1993; Vol.226, c.535.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, the problem is that the Government are not prepared to tackle the main cause of air pollution in London. The Minister talked of controlling emissions, but pollution from the growth in the use of motor vehicles will far outstrip any reductions in emissions caused by the introduction of lean burn engines, catalytic convertors or any other measures.
The Government remain wedded to the roads lobby. We have witnessed indecision, dithering and delay over the major public transport projects in London—the docklands light railway extension, the Jubilee line, crossrail and the upgrading of the Northern line—and a reluctance to back the London Docklands development corporation, British Rail, London Underground and Union Railways on the need for the Woolwich rail tunnel. However, the


Government have been prepared to press ahead with the environmentally damaging M11 link. They are also still wedded to the concept of the east London river crossing.
BBC's "First Sight" programme showed the incidence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in my constituency and highlighted a school where 10 per cent. of the pupils are regularly on medication, of which a supply has to be kept at school. Yet the Government are still wedded to the east London river crossing, which will produce 1,000 metric tonnes of gaseous and particulate pollution per year, in an area in which nitrogen dioxide levels already exceed the EC limit value.
There may have been a temporary halt to the previous proposals for the east London river crossing, because of opposition to the destruction of Oxleas wood, and the threat from the European Commission. However, the Government have still not withdrawn the line order, although the line goes past eight schools, including a special school for children who suffer with asthma, cystic fibrosis and heart disease.
The Government seem to be as wedded to the motor car lobby as the American Government are to the gun lobby. Has their view shifted since the time when Nicholas Ridley was at the Department of the Environment, and said:
If people want to commute into London, who am Ito say they shouldn't?
For him that was a matter of consumer choice—yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, unless there is investment in public transport, there will be no real choice.
Nicholas Ridley at the Department of the Environment was succeeded by Cecil Parkinson, who said that people's aspirations to use a car should not be "artificially constrained". Will the Minister tell us whether that is still Government policy? We well remember the 1992 financial statement, in which London Transport's investment programme was cut by one third while the roads programme remained intact.
My hon. Friend has referred to the levels of pollution in London in recent times. We are accustomed to the alarming stories about pollution in Mexico, in Los Angeles or in Athens, but until recently there was a belief in this country that Britain had cracked the pollution problem. After all, we had pioneered clean air legislation, and the industrial grime and killer smog of the 1950s were no more.
However, as has been pointed out, today we face even more dangerous pollutants in the air that we breathe—pollutants that we often cannot see, but which can cause a variety of symptoms, including hay fever, eczema and asthma, especially among children. They are also responsible for various forms of cancer. Surveys of hospital admissions, the incidence of asthma reported to GPs and the number of prescriptions for asthma and asthma-related diseases all show significant and worrying upward trends. That evidence has been further supported by the Office of Science and Technology in its excellent report "Breathing in our Cities".
There is no doubt that oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulate matter are all relevant to respiratory disease. In addition, there is the problem of carbon monoxide, an asphyxiant, as well as the volatile organic compounds that combine with ultra-violet Eight to produce ozone, which is known to be a major irritant.
My hon. Friend has mentioned recent incidents in which there have been crisis levels of emergency admissions to hospital. One weekend, Whipps Cross hospital in London was so inundated that it ran out of anti-asthma medicines.

At King's College hospital, in Norwood, the casualty department was stuffed so full of asthma sufferers that all the nebulisers were in use at one time. So serious was the problem that one hospital alerted the national poisons unit and inquired whether there had been an escape of poisonous gas.
I am sorry that the minutes of the Select Committee on Transport concerning transport-related atmospheric pollution are not yet available, but I hope that the Government will study them seriously. In particular, I draw their attention to the evidence given to the Select Committee by Dr. Barry Gray, the consultant in the department of respiratory diseases at King's college hospital.
Can anyone now dispute that oxides of nitrogen exacerbate asthma? The concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in London last year increased by 17 per cent. Yes, there are international agreements to cut emissions, but the levels have been rising since the 1980s. Emissions from road transport rose by 72 per cent. in the 1980s. The Department of Health advisory group on medical aspects of air pollution published its report in 1993. The Government said that there was little cause for concern, but the report gives no grounds for complacency. Having reviewed all the evidence from epidemiological studies, it concludes:
many studies have found associations with NOx-linked pollution and health effects, at levels well below WHO guideline levels … the epidemiological evidence does not exclude. an association between the types of pollution of which NOx forms part, and various respiratory health effects".
In my area, the latest figures available in the report by the director of public health show that asthma represented 10 per cent. of the admissions of children to hospital and that a further 7 per cent. were due to infections of the upper respiratory tract. Between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s, in my area of south-east London, hospital admissions of children for asthma rose by a staggering 207 per cent. Nationally, asthma costs the national health service between £700 million and £800 million a year. With costs to the Department of Social Security and other added costs, we are talking about a cost to the country of well over £1 billion.
Regrettably, London is at the head of the league table in the incidence of asthma. The London air quality network warned last month that London air was the worst for 40 years. I rang the Government's hotline today to find out the current situation. I discovered that the nearest monitoring station to my constituency, in Bexley, showed that in terms of sulphur dioxide levels, yesterday the air quality was poor. The forecast for London today is poor for nitrogen oxides, for sulphur dioxide, for benzene and for ozone.
It was suggested that the air quality for the rest of the country was good. However, I point out to those who will leave London tomorrow to return to their constituencies that there is some doubt about what the term "good" means. Under the present classification, the "good" category allows up to 100 parts per billion of ozone, whereas the World Health Organisation recommends a maximum one-hour guideline of 76 to 100 parts per billion. The National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection has said:
to describe ozone levels approaching 100 parts per billion as good surely requires the use of rose-tinted spectacles.
In response to criticism from Friends of the Earth, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who was then Under-Secretary of State for Health, said:
WHO has set guidelines which are intended to be levels above which action should be taken to reduce pollution. They are not


indications of a health risk as they incorporate safety margins.
The World Health Organisation itself says something quite different. It says:
Since the air quality guideline value incorporates little or no margin of protection, widespread acute effects of the respiratory tract may be caused. The frequent and repetitive nature of ozone exposure might contribute to the development of irreversible decline of lung function as well as to structural lung damage.
We know that the WHO guidelines are frequently exceeded in London. Does the Minister stand by the remarks by the former Health Minister or will he now tell the truth, which would indeed be a breath of fresh air in the Chamber?
The Government put their faith in voluntary action. They turn their face against regulation and controls in their free-enterprise, deregulated culture. They seem still to be wedded to Ridley's belief in the right of the individual to have the freedom to pollute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham referred to buses and to diesel emissions. Why have the Government rejected the host of proposals in the report by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution of 1991? Why have they rejected all the proposals that showed ways in which the emission of pollutants from heavy-duty diesel-engined vehicles could be reduced? There were positive recommendations in the report—recommenda-tions which would involve grants and tax incentives, and use the vehicle excise duty. The Government rejected those recommendations on the basis that
more generous treatment for buses … would amount to a special subsidy".
They also rejected tax incentives or the principle of taxing the polluter because that would be
counter to the Government's policy of maintaining neutrality and low overall rates of tax".
They have shown that they are unwilling to take the necessary action to tackle the appalling levels of pollution and the risk to health in the capital city. It would appear that they have taken action only when they have been forced to do so by European legislation and European directives. I wonder whether the time may not be coming soon when the Government may be asking for a opt-out from those responsibilities as well.
The Department of the Environment expert panel on air standards and the Department's consultative paper on improving air quality both talk of guidelines. Those guidelines will be little more than a wish-list or pious hope unless they are given statutory backing.
The Government, after much pressure, have improved the air quality monitoring network in London, but little or nothing has been done on prevention. The impact of air pollution on the health of Londoners is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, extremely serious and requires urgent action now. The high rates of children with asthma and the unacceptable data associated with particulate emissions are of particular concern. As I have said, the health guidelines are regularly exceeded in London for a number of common pollutants, mainly from road transport. Unless mandatory air quality standards are set, with a target date for compliance, the proposed standards will fail to impact on transport and planning policies.
London remains vulnerable to future severe pollution episodes, but the Government have no plans to issue smog alerts backed by powers to restrain traffic, as has been done

in other countries. The Department of the Environment survey in 1992 found that 19 million people live in areas in breach of the EC directive's annual mean guide value for nitrogen dioxide; eight of the 10 sites with the highest levels were in London. That somewhat contradicts the Minister's assurance given to the House last year that air quality in London is:
good or very good 97 per cent. of the time".—[Official Report, 10 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 530.]
It is time that the Department of the Environment, if it is worthy of its name, tackled the real issues and confronted the Department of Transport.
As my hon. Friend said, the Department of Transport traffic management policy in London is to try to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles on the roads—maximising the efficiency of the road network. The Department judges the red routes in London a success. Red routes in London have led to an increase in traffic of 10 per cent.—10 per cent. more vehicles. Is the number of vehicles on the road an effective measure of efficiency, or should we be examining the number of people or the amount of goods? In a recent debate, an Environment Minister shouted across the Chamber that buses pollute, too. As my hon. Friend said, buses do pollute, too, but a bus takes up three times the space of a car but carries 80 people, whereas a car on average carries 1.3 people in the capital city. A vehicle-centred approach to efficiency will cause more congestion and pollution, not less. I support my hon. Friend's call for a major shift in expenditure in transport policy from road to public transport.
I shall conclude by examining briefly what the Government regard as safe in London. For whom is it safe? Certainly, there is evidence to show that levels of pollutants of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, which may have little or no effect on a healthy adult, have a different effect on someone who is predisposed to asthma or other respiratory illness. There is also evidence to show that the effects can be much greater on young children than on adults. Children take in more air pollution in proportion to the size of their lungs and the toxins processed by a child's smaller organs accrue higher concentrations. Children also tend to be shorter than adults, so, on the pavement, they are closer to the source of pollution and inhale higher levels of it.
The dangers of other pollutants can be different in certain circumstances. I have already spoken about the high levels of products of chlorine in the atmosphere in the east Thames corridor. The director of public health for the Bexley health authority has prepared a report in which she says:
Chlorine has not been incorporated into the evolutionary chemistry of man, or for that matter into any animal. It is a broad system poison with a wide range of biological activity, and is toxic to all animals.
It is also cumulative in body fat stores.
She then quoted Dr. Howard, of the department of foetal and infant pathology, at the Royal Liverpool Children's hospital, who has said:
chlorine compounds can be transferred via the placenta to the developing foetus and through breastmilk to the newborn child at 100 to 200 times the body concentration of the mother.
There is clear evidence that the whole range of air-borne pollutants in London can be transmitted to the foetus in far greater concentrations than they are ingested by the adult.
One other pollutant represents a serious, growing problem in London, carbon monoxide, most of which comes from vehicle exhausts. In London, there are


occasions when the levels of carbon monoxide have reached double the World Health Organisation's guideli-nes. The Government's have predicted that, nationally, transport carbon emissions will rise from 38 million tons in 1990 to 62 million tons by 2010.
The symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include drowsiness, impaired brain functioning, slow reflexes and impaired perception and thinking. One can only assume that the Government are suffering from such poisoning, given their inaction in dealing with that menace in the capital city.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on his success in the ballot and on his good sense in his choice of subject.
This is a timely debate, in the sense of the concern recently expressed about air quality, even though those of us who have had rather less sleep than normal would not necessarily regard this as the most timely moment in the course of the parliamentary day to be debating the subject.
We have had an able presentation from my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham and for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) of the key issues of air quality and the clear links between that and transport-induced emissions. which are a source of ever greater concern to those of us who live in and represent London constituencies.
The subject was highlighted graphically by the latest edition of The Independent on Sunday, with a front page leading article, entitled, "The day Britain choked". It reported:
Britain has experienced the greatest asthma epidemic ever recorded during this summer's heatwave … At the height of the epidemic, some London hospitals ran out of medication for asthmatics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich drew attention to that fact. The same point was stressed in the article, which continued:
Startled doctors at one hospital at first thought there had been an escape of poison gas, as at Bhopal in India, 10 years ago.
'We suspect that this is the biggest documented outbreak anywhere in the world,' said Dr. Virginia Murray, of the National Poisons Unit at Guy's and St.Thomas's Hospitals.
That is pretty stark reading. The article reflects the seriousness of the problem.
We are all familiar with the background. We know that in the past poor air quality—especially smog—was a real problem in London. Mercifully, the problem has reduced dramatically in the past 50 years, as a result, essentially, of the clean air legislation and reductions in emissions from both industrial and domestic users. The traditional London pea souper is now, thankfully, a memory from the past.
In the past few years, an entirely new atmospheric threat has emerged. Industrially based pollution has continued to decline and the domestic use of coal fires has reduced dramatically, so easing pollution from that source, but pollution attributable to motor vehicles has been rising inexorably involving the emission of a range of different pollutants.
I need to go no further than the Government's report on the United Kingdom environment to highlight the trend. The report, which was published less than a couple of years ago, refers specifically to black smoke emissions, which have declined by 20 per cent. since 1980 because of the halving of emissions from domestic sources, but it highlights the fact that over the same period emissions

from road transport of black smoke have doubled. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham and for Woolwich have dealt specifically with black smoke emissions and hydrocarbon emissions, which are a specific cause of concern.
The Government's report on our environment highlighted the extent of the increase in average UK concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, which increased by 35 per cent. from 1986 to 1991. That was mainly because of the increased emissions from traffic. The report stresses the extent to which carbon monoxide emissions have also increased since 1980 by over 30 per cent. It is a chilling fact that 90 per cent. of emissions of carbon monoxide are derived from road vehicles.
These are all disturbing trends. They are associated with the remarkable increase in the incidence of asthma that is affecting a wide range of the population, but especially children in London and throughout the country. We have heard extremely worrying evidence of the extent of asthma incidents in Streatham. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham conducted a survey in the area and found some shattering evidence of the extent of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich rightly referred to the widespread and much reported problems of asthma in south-east London, problems with which I am familiar.
We know about the wide range of polluting emissions. We know, for example, about the incidence of black smoke, hydrocarbons, particulates, benzine—it is carcinogetic—NOx, low-level ozone and carbon monoxide. We know also of the extent of emissions of carbon dioxide —the greenhouse gas—for which we have targets which were agreed at the Rio conference two years ago. It will be extremely difficult for the Government to meet those targets if radical steps are not taken to secure substantial reductions in emissions, especially from motor vehicles.
Faced with all these serious grounds for concern, the Government's response has been extremely negligent. My hon. Friends have referred to the traditional Tory love affair with the motor car. We have heard references to the late Lord Ridley's wish for people to be free to drive their cars to wherever they might wish to go. He took a rather different view, however, if people proposed to drive their motor cars into the countryside where he lived privately. That was when his not-in-my-backyard instincts were aroused. He saw no problems, however, if anyone wanted to bring a motor car into London, whatever the impact on the environment.
We know also of Baroness Thatcher's preference for the use of the motor car rather than public transport, her hatred of public transport and her wish to be able to travel in her own car wherever and whenever she wanted. The fact that that privilege would inevitably result in a disadvantage to other people never crossed Baroness Thatcher's mind due to her highly selfish approach towards policy making.
The Government's current presumptions in seeking ever-increasing road capacity to cope with increased demand for car usage sadly perpetuates the trends set in place during the 1980s by Baroness Thatcher and the late Lord Ridley. The problem with the Government's approach is that the demand is insatiable. Their own figures show the extent of the projected increase in motor car usage. Even the low forecast of the increase in car usage over the next two decades from 1994 to 2014 gives a projected rise of 37 per cent. across Great Britain and 29 per cent. in London; the high forecast gives a possible


increase of 59 per cent. across the whole of Great Britain and 48 per cent. in London. One has to think for only a brief moment about the current state of London's traffic to realise that the prospect of an increase of between 29 and 48 per cent. in motor vehicle traffic in London is unsustainable. It would have catastrophic implications in terms of congestion, the amenity of Londoners and the increase in toxic emissions.
The idea that we should base public policy on a wish to satisfy that level of demand for increased vehicle usage in an area that is already hopelessly over-congested is the policy of the madhouse. The very process of building new roads contributes to the increase in congestion, as many road schemes have shown. When the M25 was originally conceived, it was envisaged as a relief road which would take traffic out of London and ease congestion in London. Now that we have the M25, we have ever-greater congestion in London and the M25 is so hopelessly congested that the argument is now being advanced that it must be extended in various places to a 14-lane super-highway. If that argument is accepted, it will lead us down an utterly disastrous route to increased road capacity, attracting yet more vehicles and increasing congestion, pollution and, in turn, the demand for more road space. It is a monster whose appetite is insatiable and, if it is indulged, it will continue to demand more and more.
The time has come to call a halt and say that a new policy approach is necessary. We cannot continue to sacrifice the countryside and the interests of ordinary people who rightly wish to enjoy fresh air and escape from the urban environment to attractive rural areas surrounding big cities. We cannot destroy those prospects by creating the massive devastation and damage that we have unfortunately witnessed at Twyford down in the past couple of years as the Government have driven through that road scheme against justified opposition from all those concerned about the environment—[Interruption.] The despoliation of our landscape may not concern the Minister, who is intervening from a sedentary position, but for Opposition Members the despoliation of Twyford down will be remembered as one of the most disgraceful actions of a Government whose whole transport policy has failed and is rightly rejected.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Labour party would have done the same.

Mr. Raynsford: In the past week, the Labour party has published a new environmental policy which has been well received by an extremely wide range of bodies concerned with the environment and the country's future. That policy document, "In Trust for Tomorrow", a concept which a Government who are in hock to the past cannot appreciate, sets out clearly how we shall change present policy. [Interruption.] The Minister, from a sedentary position, wants a price tag. I will tell him. He will be disappointed, because the price tag is a neutral price tag, as we are calling a halt to the wasteful expenditure on unnecessary road schemes, which has become the hallmark of the present Government. We shall call a halt to the squandering of millions, if not billions, of pounds on building roads that damage our countryside, which attract more vehicles into

areas where there is already excessive congestion, and which do nothing to attack the fundamental problem of inadequate investment in public transport.
We shall achieve a significant shift in the allocation of resources away from unnecessary road schemes such as the M25 widening. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on the response of his hon. Friends from constituencies around the M25. He may not be a Transport Minister, but he is a Minister who has responsibilities, and has hon. Friends who represent constituencies around the route proposed for the widening of the M25. I wonder whether he has consulted them on their views about those proposals.

Mr. Atkins): indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford: I have to advise the Minister that there is little enthusiasm for the massive road-building schemes of his Government among his hon. Friends who represent the areas that will be affected. That should give him pause for thought as to just how unpopular and inappropriate the Government's transport policies are.
A new approach is required—an approach that will achieve a shift in spending away from roads and in favour of public transport. A halt is needed to unnecessary, wasteful road-building projects such as the M25 extension, and instead there should be an emphasis on investing in much-needed public transport infrastructure.
London requires the modernisation of its rail network. We need modern, comfortable, reliable, attractive train services to ensure that people use them rather than bringing their motor cars into central London. We need new lines such as crossrail to provide links across the city where they do not exist at the moment. We need new links such as the Woolwich metro, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich rightly referred, to ensure that there are good public transport alternatives to avoid the need for road-building schemes such as the East London river crossing, which would have a dire environmental impact on a part of south-east London already suffering from excessive atmospheric pollution.
We need improved investment in the London underground. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham rightly highlighted the Government's failure to honour their pledge, made at the most recent general election, to invest £3.5 billion in improving the London underground to a decently modern metro standard. Instead, we have £1 billion less investment than was promised, and London Underground Ltd. literally has to look to every opportunity that it can to achieve basic modernisation work. For example, the Northern line rolling stock should have been replaced a long time ago, but London Underground is still waiting for news as to how the tendering process proceeds for the replacement of that stock.
We also know the delay that has occurred over the Jubilee line. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich rightly alluded to that. We have the strange saga of the docklands light railway extension, which cannot proceed because there is uncertainty about its funding. The most absurd proposal is emerging that stations should be dropped out of the scheme to reduce the cost, to make it possible to attract private finance.
One only has to pause for thought to realise the stupidity of a line of policy that suggests that much-needed stations, especially one at Cutty Sark in my constituency, which would attract a large number of tourists to one of the most


attractive tourist sites in London, should be deleted because it is not possible to raise sufficient private finance to fund that station in the short term. It is the worst possible example of short-termism, of failure to consider London's overall needs, and failure to provide the proper transport network that we require.
That is no way to plan a transport system, but it is typical of the approach that has been adopted by the Government. We have to reverse that and ensure that there is increased investment in public transport, financed by a transfer of resources from the road-building programme.
We also need to improve London's bus service. London's buses are critical to large numbers of people, particularly when undertaking short to medium length journeys and in areas where there is no adequate train or underground service. Large parts of south London are entirely without the underground system. Buses must be given an advantage to enable them to carry passengers at reasonable speed. Such an advantage means bus lanes which, in turn, will help to reduce the excess capacity available on roads that simply allows more private cars to use them. A policy that includes an extension of bus lanes, better priority for buses and restrictions on the volume of car traffic that can come into certain areas of London must be right.
By considering the experiment that has been conducted by the City of London in the past year, we can learn some interesting lessons. The City corporation introduced, as an anti-terrorism measure, wide-ranging restrictions on people's ability to bring private cars into the square mile. The results have been startling and startlingly successful. There has been a dramatic reduction in the problems of congestion and in pollution levels in the City, and there has been a shift in usage from private cars to public transport. Those results are all benefits and virtually everyone who has considered the experiment recognises that it has resulted in a significant improvement. It gives us clear evidence of the need to pursue similar radical and positive approaches to tackle our acute transport problems.
As well as pursuing measures to support and encourage public transport and to restrict unnecessary private vehicle movements into congested city areas, we also need effective monitoring of air quality. We need national air quality targets, local authorities with powers to be able to implement and monitor those targets and, where necessary, to specify higher targets to be achieved within their areas, particularly where there are very serious problems. Local authorities must also have the discretion to decide how they can ensure, within their local transport plans, that the standards and targets will be met.
We need a range of traffic-calming measures. We need alternatives that encourage modern, light train and supertram systems. The Croydon initiative is very much to be welcomed in that context, as are park-and-ride schemes. We also need far more effective warning when severe episodes of air pollution are expected. It is very much the responsibility of the Government to take the lead in giving such a warning. I hope that they will work with local authorities to ensure a system under which people are advised when it will present a risk, both to them and to other people, to take cars into congested areas.
We also need to place greater emphasis on technological responses and the extension of catalytic converters. As well as encouraging more retro-fitting, we need to encourage the whole industry to explore alternatives that will achieve greater fuel efficiency and, in

the long term, to explore alternatives to the internal combustion engine. There is a range of policy options, which are covered in detail in Labour's new environmental policy. Those options point to a positive and hopeful way forward to a new approach to tackle the acute pollution problems that we face.
People all over London are rightly concerned about the problem, which calls out for an urgent and imaginative response. We in the Labour party have put forward that response. I hope that the Government will listen and will reverse their policy in response to London's needs.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on initiating this debate. I must correct him on one small point—I am not new to my job, I have been doing it since January. Neither am I a Transport Minister, although clearly the subject impacts on that Department, too.
As the parent of a daughter who is a quite severe asthmatic, I am only too well aware of the pressures on, and the problems caused for, youngsters—a matter which Labour Members raised. Therefore, I hope that they will accept that we have just as much, if not more, interest in such matters as anyone else. When the Government published the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy earlier this year, we identified improving air quality in our cities and towns as one of the most significant challenges for sustainable development. We are determined to meet that challenge.
That is why we followed the strategy almost immediately with our discussion document "Improving Air Quality", in which we put forward radical options for making the air that we breathe cleaner and healthier. We asked for full discussion, for constructive comment, for alternative views and for practical experiments to test ways of improving air quality. Some 130 organisations replied, from local government, business and the voluntary sector. They support our strategy. They have made positive suggestions and they have also expressed a willingness to work with us. We are now considering all the responses in depth and we will announce our proposals, including our plans for the first air quality experiments, later this year. I urge those hon. Members who have not read "Improving Air Quality"—especially those who suggest that nothing is happening—to read it now and, perhaps, to think again.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister spoke of the urgency of the Government's approach to the issue. Why has not the Department of Health published the report on an incident in December 1991 in which, it is claimed, 200 extra deaths occurred in London? Is not it a matter of shame for the Government that there have been two similar incidents in the past month, which may well have killed large numbers of people, yet no report has yet been published on the incident some three years ago?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot comment on that matter, as I am not a Health Minister. However, I undertake to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concern is registered with Health Ministers, who will doubtless pursue the matter with him in due course. I regret that I cannot give him a direct answer.
While none of us for a second underestimates the concern that people have for the quality of air that we have


experienced during the last couple of weekends, I would not want hon. Members to run away with idea that the matter is nearly as serious as we are sometimes led to believe. It is not killer smog; we are talking about incidences of poor air quality on certain occasions. They should not be overestimated in the tabloid terms that some people use. I am not suggesting that Opposition Members are guilty of that, but the media sometimes are.
When we publish our proposals this autumn, we will be building on the strong base of what we have already done. I remind the House that it was the Conservative party in government that brought in the Clean Air Act 1952, which was one of the most revolutionary Acts of its type. We know only too well the importance of that and what should be done to improve on it.
As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, we do not want to go back to the 1950s. We all know that acrid, choking, sulphur smog is no longer part of London life. Important as they still are, I shall not dwell on the measures that have halved sulphur emissions since 1970 and cut peak levels in London tenfold. We know that, as our life styles have changed, pollution has changed, especially in towns and cities where traffic is now the major source of many important pollutants. We have risen to those challenges and acted to deal with them.
Recent claims, which have been added to in the debate, that the public were given no information about ozone levels until the EC ozone directive came into force early this year are simply patently wrong. We launched our information service—which is second to none in the world —in October 1990, to provide reports and forecasts on a number of pollutants to the media and the public. We do that every day, not just when EC information levels or limits are approached. We do it through a free telephone line and also on Ceefax and Teletext, where the information is updated every hour, on the hour.
We spend some £4 million per year on air quality monitoring and we plan to expand those networks, doubling the number of sites in our enhanced urban network by 1997. We have consulted on integrating local monitoring with our own so that we all work to common standards. All the data from my Department's networks are published and are freely available. The national emissions inventory is updated annually and we are sponsoring the development of more detailed emissions inventories that will enable us to assess the best detailed improvement strategies for particular areas. London was the first city to be tackled.
Taken overall, the air in even our most congested towns and cities is cleaner than it was. Levels of lead in central London have fallen by more than six times since 1980 and emissions are set to reduce during the next few years because of the action that the Government have already taken. Already, 3 million vehicles—15 per cent., not 5 per cent., of the vehicle fleet—have catalysts. Nitrogen dioxide emissions are already falling and even greater gains will follow when new EC standards for petrol and diesel vehicles come into effect in 1996.
We have already begun pressing our European partners on improvements that we wish to see for the year 2000, such as on-board diagnostics that will tell drivers and testers whether emissions equipment is working properly. We are considering alternatives to the internal combustion

engine. The Departments of the Environment, of Transport and of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will spend substantial sums during the next two years on research into cleaner alternative technologies.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has referred to the extent to which, in his view, emissions are falling. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government are doing as against their own targets in respect of NOx and CO2missions?

Mr. Atkins: I shall try, when I reach the point in my speech.

Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry.

Mr. Atkins: Not at all. We have to keep ourselves awake at this time of the morning.
I chair the greener motoring forum which brings together central and local government, business and environmental groups in order to help our vital transport systems in a way that will reduce their impact on the environment. Naturally, we do not concentrate solely on technology. For example, we are looking at economic instruments, increases in fuel taxes and potential for congestion charging.
Together with the Department of Transport, we have issued guidance to local authorities on how the land use planning system can help to manage the impact of transport on the environment. Local authorities have been asked to put forward complete packages for transport funding and to give higher priority to facilities for walking, cycling and public transport, in which we are investing substantial sums.
Finally, we have certainly not forgotten other sources of pollution. London and all areas where domestic emissions are still important are covered by smoke control orders. In 1990, we introduced innovative new systems for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local authorities to deal with industrial air pollution. The rest of the EC is only now looking to catch up with our integrated pollution control system, which is unique and a world beater. The integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which is still being discussed in Council, takes our IPC system as its model.
However, as hon. Gentlemen said—I do not disagree —more remains to be done. When I launched the document entitled "Improving Air Quality" I pointed clearly to three areas where the Government see a need for further work —air quality standards, short-term measures to reduce pollution from vehicles already on the road and local air quality management strategies for problem areas.
We set up the expert panel on air quality standards in 1991 to make recommendations based on the best currently available scientific evidence of likely risks and benefits. This year, EPAQS—we have an affection for acronyms in the Department of the Environment—has published its first report on benzene and ozone and it will publish further reports later this year, which doubtless will cover the particular points that the hon. Member for Greenwich raised. I will check.

Mr. Raynsford: So will I.

Mr. Atkins: Good. We will check together.
The Departments of the Environment and of Health will do all that they can to support the work of EPAQS and to


provide further assessment on pollution levels, trends and costs that will enable the Government to reach early decisions.
To be fair, the jury is still out on what causes asthma in the first place. We know that air pollution can affect many people with asthma and other breathing difficulties. Much work is going on not only in Government health departments but outside in the medical profession, the motoring journals and other sectors, in an attempt to discover whether asthma is caused by, for example, motoring activity or dust mites. As I discovered much to my interest the other day, the biggest cause of asthma in California is barbecues. That problem may not have hit us yet, but if our weather goes on being as warm as it has been, it may yet do so.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are spending sufficient money on asthma research? I understand that it totals £1 million a year. In my own health authority area, which covers the boroughs of Bexley and Greenwich, the cost to the NHS of treating reversible bronchia-constriction is in the region of £2 million a year, excluding the costs of prophylaxis, prevention, peak-flow meters and antibiotics for secondary infections. Should not more money be spent on asthma research to reduce the excessive bill for treating asthma with drugs?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but I cannot possibly answer that question, which is for my colleagues in the Department of Health. However, I will ensure that they read the debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the matter up with them, or I will get them to write to him. I cannot comment on costs, but we are doing a lot of work, rightly so, on asthma research. I have a particular personal interest in one form or another. My daughter believes that when she goes to the garage for petrol, the volatile organic compounds that surround petrol delivery sometimes aggravate her asthma. It is probably fair to expect car emissions to have an effect.
When I was roads Minister, I was instrumental in introducing emissions measurement into the MOT test. Although, like all aspects of that test, that applies only at the moment of testing, we should give thought to whether more regular checks ought to be made. Some London local authorities, such as Westminster and Southwark, are doing a lot. "Improving Air Quality" identified poorly maintained vehicles and black smoke from diesels as issues to be addressed. In 1992–93, the Vehicle Inspectorate carried out 16,000 spot checks and issued 200 prohibition notices as part of its regular enforcement activity. I am sure that all hon. Members would like fewer vehicles on our streets emitting black smoke and other obvious pollution. The other day, I noticed when following London taxis and open-topped tourist buses—which tend to be older vehicles—that they contribute significantly in that respect.
I recently attended a demonstration of the Royal Automobile Club's technology testing of passing cars. It is not yet proven, but it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Flynn: The Minister is complacent in many of the things that he says. Some countries already impose limits on PM10s—tiny, invisible soot particles of less than 10 microns that pass through our air passages and lodge in the lung. Those particles are coated with as many as 60 carcinogenic chemicals. One estimate is that they cause.

10,000 deaths a year. The lowest estimate is 3,000 extra deaths. The number is increasing because PM10s come from diesels, which we have encouraged. The worst thing that we ever did was to take lead out of petrol, because it has increased benzene in the atmosphere, which has created more carcinogens. It is unlikely that I will be called to speak in the debate, but the Minister must be told that those problems need urgent examination.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep—like most people this time of the morning. I spoke all along about the work being done in those areas. I am fascinated to learn that the hon. Gentleman is now opposed to taking the lead out of petrol, which had the favour of many people across the parliamentary divide. Much work is being done on what is good and what is bad. The hon. Gentleman will know if he is a fair man—I am sure that he is, even if he is a Welshman—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I apologise, and I withdraw that remark. I am just trying to keep myself awake. In all seriousness, a lot of work is going on, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is not yet proven that diesel causes the problems.

Mr. Flynn: It is.

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, but it is not. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that diesel is not as good as everyone thought that it was. That is fair. Much effort has been put in by the motoring manufacturers in developing the cleaner car, although they would say that the public consider the environmental aspects of their vehicles as being at the bottom of their buying agendas. None the less, the points that the hon. Gentleman makes have some validity in that there is still much work to be done, and, is being done, not only by Government but by industry and the medical profession, in trying to determine what is a contributory cause to the sort of pollution that we are talking about today.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Atkins: No, I shall not give way again, as I have only limited time and want to finish my point. The hon. Gentleman should have intervened at an earlier point, like all the rest of us.
As I was about to say, before I was so rudely interrupted, it should be clear from "Improving Air Quality" that we do not rule out new measures, but I think that there is scope for harnessing public willingness to do better. After all, badly maintained vehicles, as well as affecting the air that we all breathe, probably use more fuel and therefore waste drivers' money.
Lastly and most radically, in improving air quality, we set out the case for integrated local air quality management. The Government's national policies will reduce pollution generally throughout the country, but where there is traffic congestion or industry, or where there are other special factors, there may be a danger that standards will not be met. What we have in mind, therefore, is a menu of supplementary measures for problem areas. Each would choose the mix that would address its particular combination of problems most cost effectively. We have not yet finally determined the contents of the menu. We decided on a full and open debate. Therefore, in improving air quality, we listed the sorts of measures that might be considered and asked for comment and further suggestions.
Among the points that we put up for discussion were suggestions that local planning and highway authorities


might be required to have specific regard to the impact of proposals on air quality; that traffic regulation orders could restrict vehicle access; and that there might be specially targeted measures to enforce controls on smoky vehicles in problem areas, more local information services and more detailed emission inventories, such as the one developed for London. Most of all, we need better integration of all the individual measures that can affect local air quality. Many of those are already in the hands of local authorities, and the hon. Member for Greenwich touched on that point in his concluding remarks. He believed that they should be, and will be, important players. It is obvious that, in an area such as London, one authority acting alone cannot solve all the problems. Local authorities will have to co-operate with each other, and they do so in London through the London air quality network. I hope that their co-operation will pay dividends.
Central Government, the new agency, business and the local community must also be drawn in, and we must leave room for innovation and adaptation. Testing how best to achieve proper co-ordination is therefore the key area for testing alternative approaches. As I said earlier, we will be announcing later this year the first experiments with local authorities that have said that they want to work with us. I hope that their positive response in London, together with that of other organisations, will be mirrored elsewhere.
I have looked with some interest at the Opposition's document: "Six Steps to Banish Smog" and have listened to what hon. Members have said tonight. I am only sorry that, four months after we initiated the debate, I saw nothing in that document, nor heard anything today, to suggest that what the Government have done requires any improvement from the Opposition.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It has been very disappointing to hear the Minister read his prepared speech, because his attitude and demeanour do not match the crisis that London faces. We all have an interest in the matter because we have to breathe the air in London.
I mentioned lead earlier for a very good reason, because the campaign to remove lead from petrol won the support of all the environmental bodies. The result has been to increase the amount of aromatics—principally benzene —that get into the atmosphere. We know that benzene is powerfully carcinogenic. It causes cancer. It is in the air. One part per billion is already a problem, but it is in the atmosphere in much greater quantities. What do we do about that? We can improve the burn of the petrol to take out the benzene by adding extra oxygen, but if we do that we produce formaldehydes, which are also carcinogenic. We therefore have a very serious problem: none of the technical fixes appears to work.
The Minister suggested that 15 per cent. of cars had catalytic converters, and I believe that that is roughly correct. Tragically, however, 55 per cent. of the petrol that is bought is unleaded, and many people are buying super-unleaded petrol when they have no catalytic converters—with the result that their cars are not just more

polluting, but 40 times more polluting than they would be if they were using the traditional leaded petrols. Catalytic converters do not work efficiently until the car has been driven for 10 km because they have to warm up, and 75 per cent. of all journeys in this city are shorter than that. Cars with catalytic converters are therefore doing more harm in those first 10 km than they would with no catalytic converters, using the old petrol.
Having heard a great deal of evidence, many of us are in despair about London's problem. That problem cannot be underestimated. I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind an incident that occurred in December 1991 in this city. Technicians reading the meters did not believe them. That happens with all disasters: as someone who has worked all his life in laboratories, I know that when a technician sees something very strange he does not believe it. In this instance, the instruments suddenly went off the scale, showing the highest levels of pollutants ever recorded. A report made for the Department of Health has still not been published, but we know from a summary that has been made available that there were at least 150 excess deaths.
The Minister has said that air pollution does not cause asthma. I believe that that has been established: there is no scientific link. Causal links are not established in many such cases. The Minister mentioned, however, that his daughter finds garages an irritant. That is because of the presence of benzene, which causes the pleasant smell when we put petrol into the car. Is benzene a powerful carcinogenic? We know that it comes out of exhausts as well. There are many things that we cannot prove, but we know for certain that asthmatics—whose numbers have grown in my county by 118 per cent. in the past 15 years —are greatly troubled by fumes from cars, and in atmospheres with high concentrations of particulates and poisons.
The position is getting worse, for the reasons that I have given. We do not know what we are doing. It is easy to say that we need research; we could continue to do research for the next 100 years, but we still might not find those causal links. It took us 30 years to find the link between cancer and smoking. We cannot wait that long in this case. Every day in this city an enormous, uncontrolled experiment is taking place. We are pumping a huge cocktail of chemicals into the atmosphere; we do not know what those chemicals do when they come together, but we know that mixing two toxic chemicals produces a mixture not just twice as toxic but possibly a hundred times as toxic. Given the great soup of chemicals in the air, a still day like that day in 1991, with barometric pressure placing a lid on the city and stopping the air from moving and sunshine baking the chemicals, will lead to a mass of complex chemical reactions producing a lethal mixture that we have to breathe.
It is certain that the ozone and particulates involved in London's pollution are a deadly mixture. We must not be complacent and congratulate ourselves on producing a number of reports or on being better than country A or country B; we must give urgent consideration to restricting the source of the pollution—cars. When the pollution reaches a certain level, we must say that cars cannot enter the city. Others countries are already taking such action. If we do not do so as well, hundreds—possibly thousands —of people will die unnecessarily in our capital city.

Orders of the Day — North-East Derbyshire

Mr. Harry Barnes: My debate moves us towards the north, but it deals with problems similar to those that we have been discussing for London. The Minister may be interested to know that I introduced this topic in 1989 and that the Minister who replied for the Government on that occasion is now the Secretary of State for Health. I shall wait five years to see what position the current Minister has moved to.
Pollution knows no boundaries, as was obvious internationally when the Chernobyl incident occurred. Nationally, the figures from the Department of the Environment for ozone pollution during hot weather show that often the higher levels are not necessarily in counties with the largest towns but are sometimes in neighbouring areas. Oxfordshire is in the top list and Derbyshire is fourth in that set of figures. It may be that some of the problems resulting in the high ozone level in Derbyshire derive from neighbouring areas such as Sheffield, with the pollution drifting to Derbyshire. Locally, the crossing of boundaries is illustrated by the fact that the River Doe Lea, which starts in Bolsover district and constituency and is the worst polluted river in Europe, forms part of the border between the districts and constituencies of Derbyshire, North-East and Bolsover.
Individualism may help to create certain pollution problems, but it offers no solution to handling those problems. Action to tackle pollution has to be planned, co-ordinated and shared and, therefore, must be social in content. In tackling pollution, there is no such thing as isolated individualism.
Pollution controls do not need to destroy production and jobs. In fact, if pollution controls are operated correctly they should work in the opposite direction. Job opportunities and production should go along with improved pollution control techniques. An example of that developed in north-east Derbyshire. Biwaters of Clay Cross in north-east Derbyshire produces pipes which are often sold internationally. The company was a polluter, producing old-fashioned muck and dirt, and was under considerable pressure to clean up its act. Pressures were being applied by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
The firm obtained new markets in a peculiar way. When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, she went to Malaysia and became involved in trade and aid discussions. That opened up new markets and led to a development of rural piping throughout Malaysia. The great bulk of that production came from the Bywaters plant in Clay Cross. In order to increase production, the company agreed to instigate investment which would control the pollution problems in the area as well as helping with the expansion. So we have more jobs, greater production and less pollution as a result of that investment.
We have sometimes missed out on those opportunities. For instance, Avenue coke works at Wingerworth is now closed. More than 300 people were made redundant; yet the product was desirable for pollution control. The plant, however, was aging and produced pollutants itself. Investment and improvements were needed to maintain jobs and to make a product that would sell; the product being produced became inferior because of the conditions

prevailing at the plant. We need policies that would allow an organisation such as Avenue coke works to continue its production without creating pollution.
Much has already been said about the need for an integrated social transport system at the national and international level. Although perhaps not yet in a very developed form, such systems are offered through the European Community. Plans to develop a common transport policy throughout the EC were discussed recently in Standing Committee A.
To highlight the extent of the pollution problem, I shall use north-east Derbyshire, and the Staveley area in particular, as an example. The northern part of Staveley falls within the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East while the southern part falls within the constituency of Chesterfield. That shows that boundaries are meaningless when we are debating pollution.
Mr. Wareing, a farmer of Barrow Hill, keeps elaborate records of the pollution that he encounters. He has recorded high levels of sulphur, molybdenum and fluoride in herbage and silage. Since 1971, 25 per cent. of calves born there have had eye defects, and some have been blind. He once showed me a photosensitive cow that had to be kept in the dark. He is pursuing cases in the courts against local firms. The value of what he is doing lies in the fact that the details will be placed in the public domain. There were also problems recently when travellers arrived in a nearby area that suffers similar problems. The travellers were therefore in considerable danger.
Asthma was mentioned in our previous debate. It is a considerable problem in the Staveley area. Many instances have been recorded at schools there; at Barrow Hill primary school, the figure is 23 per cent., which is at least twice the national average. That says something about the nature of the problems in the area. Pollution caused by transport may drift: Barrow Hill is not an area with high car use, so many other factors could come into play—some may be related to the problems recorded by the farmer to whom I referred.
Great attention was paid to Staveley's problems because of a scare about high levels of dioxins. There had been an incident at Coalite, and an examination was undertaken. Three farms in the Bolsover area were taken out of production—two produced milk and the one that sold meat supplies reared suckling cows. What happened there has been stressed a great deal by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Because of the problems at Coalite, investigations were started over a somewhat wider area in Staveley and it was discovered that there was another strain of dioxin, different from the Coalite pollution. That was traced to Stanton plc. In 1993, eight farms in the area were taken out of milk production and had their milk tested. According to current standards, the levels were found acceptable, so the farms went back into milk production.
Although the dioxin problems were discovered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Department of the Environment, the work of cleaning them up had to be pursued by Chesterfield borough council and North-East Derbyshire district council, mainly through their environmental health officers. That produced a problem in terms of the availability of resources to tackle such tasks, but at least when we found out what the levels were we could begin to take action.
Other problems in the area include river pollution and the difficulty of containing consent levels in what goes into


the River Rother, into which the Doe Lea eventually flows. We also have problems involving sewage treatment and the death of the river. The National Rivers Authority has tried to turn the river back into a waterway that can support fish.
Another problem connected with sewage is the overflow from drains, caused by the inadequacy of the provision, which is in the hands of Yorkshire Water Services. There is a great need to encourage the company to extend its improvements in the area to help districts in Hollingwood where there is serious flooding, involving overflows of sewage in residential areas and in an area where there is a working men's club.
The traffic problems that were discussed in the previous debate also exist in my area.
There was a particular problem at Rhône-Poulenc—generally known as Staveley Chemicals—which has an elaborate warning system for local residents. A siren sounds when there is held to be danger in the area. Unfortunately, it sounded accidentally recently and there was no system for telling people that the danger was over. Luckily, because of the lesson that it learned, the company has now moved to establish a new system. The action card, which is quite elaborate, has to be distributed in the Staveley area. It tells people in great detail about going indoors and staying there, about tuning to local radio and so on, about what they have to do to assist the police and fire services, and about waiting for the all-clear. Unfortunately, within that area there are several other firms —such as Coalite, which is not too far away—and they all operate similar systems. What is required is an understanding that the signalling system is different in different areas. When the accident took place, people rang up Coalite instead of Staveley Chemicals to ask what was wrong in the area.
Staveley's problems must be tackled in a co-ordinated way. I do not think that we have the provisions to do that. We have a junior Minister for the Environment and Countryside within the Department of the Environment who has some overall responsibilities for these matters, but who does not have the status or the wherewithal to be able to operate fully. We have environmental protection legislation which throws tasks on to local government, as I mentioned, but local government is fantastically underfunded in the areas with which I am dealing. In terms of standard spending assessment and the grants related to it, North-East Derbyshire district council is 275th out of 296 English councils. Chesterfield borough council is only a little ahead of that.
Then there is the problem of co-ordinating the areas to which I have referred. It was interesting that in the previous debate the Minister frequently said, "That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Department of Transport or for the Department of Health." A great difficulty in pollution control is drawing the threads together and getting hold of all the information required. In terms of handling a problem such as the one in Staveley, there are Department of Health investigations and the Department of the Environment is involved. The Department of Trade and Industry is also involved because we are talking about industries in the area, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is involved because we are talking about farms in the area. The Department of Employment, too, is involved because jobs are at stake. A whole set of

agencies are involved, including Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the National Rivers Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. Local government bodies then come into it because Chesterfield borough and North-East Derbyshire district council have environmental health responsibilities. Planning arrangements, which are sometimes overridden by the Department of the Environment on appeal, are in the hands of the district and county councils. Then there are the private bodies. There is Rhône-Poulenc—traditionally known as Staveley Chemicals—and Yorkshire Water.
The start of a solution to tackle the problems in an area such as Staveley is a full environmental survey in the area drawing the many threads together. Once we know the facts, as we eventually discovered the facts about dioxin, we can take the appropriate action to deal with the problem. But we need an agency that is able to do that. We need a new Department of Environmental Protection which will be able to co-ordinate investigations and to offer the facilities required. Such a Department could also facilitate solutions for the area.
Staveley is by no means unique in its problems. When it was discovered that Stanton plc was responsible for the dioxin in the area, the Stanton works at Stanton, in Erewash, were investigated and it was found that a similar problem existed there. I imagine that the problem exists wherever there are large industrial complexes. However, there are hopes in the Staveley area that there will be improvements. There is even a faint hope in the Department of the Environment.
In a letter to me dated 29 April, the Secretary of State for the Environment, when calls had beem made to him for the type of environmental survey about which I am talking, stated:
You will appreciate that, until the current work being undertaken by HMIP and the NRA has been completed and the results published, and the question of the prosecutions has been decided, it would not be appropriate for me to take up your invitation to visit your constituency. As soon as the additional work that HMIP is taking forward has been completed and assessed, I will write to you again about whether anything further needs to be done in response to your request for a full investigation of environmental problems in the area concerned.
There are things which we await, unless a message arrives this morning about those possibilities.
There is the possibility of action being taken in the Staveley area. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is due to visit us and the areas that I am describing on 15 September. That closely follows the publication of Labour's document "In Trust for Tomorrow", which was mentioned in a debate earlier today. I was keen to seek the position of chair of the Labour Back-Bench environment committee because of my experiences especially in north-east Derbyshire, often on a wider basis than the ones that I have stressed so far in terms of the Staveley area.
There are more problems than the ones relating to Staveley. We have been involved in a pit closure programme and privatisation. No mines are left in Derbyshire. We have one National Union of Mineworkers branch at Highmoor which is associated with the Kiveton combine, but it is due to close in September. We have the problem of mine water discharges which has been stressed by the National Rivers Authority. We also have opencast problems in the area. Despite strong objection, the most recent development was that at Spinkhill, which is not too far from some of the pits that have been closed. We have


areas of considerable opencast potential in rural areas which have not had anything to do with mining since possibly the 17th and 18th centuries. We also have the areas where there have been recent closures. Moves should be made to come in and opencast an area where a pit has closed. We also have the residual problem of mining subsidence, and inadequate means to deal with that in various areas.
The river pollution associated with the River Rother moves into other areas, apart from Staveley, to the north of the constituency through Killamarsh, where it goes close to a Leigh Environmental plant, a subject on which I had a previous Adjournment debate. We had a lengthy discussion on the matter because it was an extended Adjournment debate. Across the border in Rother Valley country park, which is in a neighbouring constituency, the water for the lake had to be imported: the water in the River Rother could not be used as it was too polluted. We also have other sewerage problems. The town in Dronfield has developed considerably and the River Drone, which passes close to a school in neighbouring Unstone, is sometimes something of an open sewer.
Obviously, such problems are not confined within the boundaries of north-east Derbyshire. The wider northeastern corner of Derbyshire has the same problems as those at Coalite—the massive opencast development taking place at Arkwright, and the general lack of investment throughout the whole area which would enable the type of environmental improvement that I have described in relation to Biwater to take place more generally.
The Government's failures need stressing, as does Labour's policy. For instance, the Minister and I and others have already clashed over the Energy Conservation Bill, which in many ways was a mild measure involving audit and conservation plans. From what was said at an earlier meeting of the European Standing Committee, I expected that before the end of this week we would have a statement in the House on transport and safety policies. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. We have discovered from a Court of Auditors report on environmental matters that many of the projects in which the European Community is involved are counterproductive environmentally.
A large jump must be made to produce the right policy for the environment. To that end, I will summarise briefly some of the Labour party's proposals. We have advocated a green industrial strategy, in which new jobs and reductions in pollution go hand in hand, as I have suggested. Our sustainable transport policy shifts the emphasis to public transport, which offers many of the benefits that I described in the previous debate on this issue. Under our energy efficiency programme, no new nuclear power stations would be commissioned and the presumption is against opencast mining. That is of particular importance to north-east Derbyshire. Our proposals to democratise planning systems would also benefit my area. We have also advocated global institutional provisions and provisions about individual rights.
Those policies represent the way forward. The problem is that we cannot wait for some of those initiatives to be introduced; the Government need to pick them up and run with them now. That is the way to tackle the problems I have outlined.

Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on his good fortune to have a debate at this cheerful hour of the morning and on the manner in which he introduced it.
It is interesting to note that, five years ago, my hon. Friend had the good fortune, yet again, to debate the problems of pollution in north-east Derbyshire. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who replied to the debate is now the Secretary of State for Health. Is she still Secretary of State?

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): indicated assent.

Mr. Howarth: That is the case.
On that occasion, the then hon. Lady said:
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has outlined a number of environmental concerns in his constituency. They are all subjects to which the Government are giving detailed consideration."—[Official Report, 13 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 245.]
It is interesting that, five years on, my hon. Friend has raised exactly the same concerns, which the Government are still subjecting to detailed consideration. Insufficient progress has been made and my hon. Friend is right to outline those concerns, once again, in some detail.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that just as pollution knows no international boundaries, equally it knows no regional boundaries. The problems of the Rivers Doe Lea and Rother, which my hon. Friend has outlined, have a regional significance and should be considered further by the Government. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is a keen angler, would like to be able to fish in that river, but, at the moment, it has no fish worth catching. The problems caused by pollution extend beyond regions and even counties.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the scale of pollution confronted in his constituency, for example, at Staveley. I know that, over the years, my hon. Friend for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has campaigned against dioxin contamination in the area. The Minister will appreciate that great concern has been expressed about the impact of the incineration of various materials on public health. The burning temperatures in that process must be monitored constantly and kept up to right level, so that dioxins are not created. It is important that the problem is kept under constant review and that action is taken where necessary to try to reduce it.
We must, as my hon. Friend said, have a properly co-ordinated strategy not only in his constituency but throughout the country. The House will be aware that there was a proposal in the Queen's Speech to introduce paving legislation for an environment agency. Sadly, that idea has sunk without trace. It seems that no such Bill exists. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Labour party—he is well aware of this—has a clear blueprint of what an environment agency should do. Indeed, the agency was our idea. I think that the Minister will concede that.

Mr. Atkins: Certainly not.

Mr. Howarth: If he examines the record, the Minister will find that the Labour party was talking about creating


an environment agency when he was worrying about the problems of Northern Ireland. I am sure that he still worries about those problems at length.
An environment agency would provide the coordination that my hon. Friend rightly thinks is lacking. It would focus also on bringing together the responsible statutory bodies and other agencies so that all resources and concerns could be handled in a proper manner. Local authorities would be involved as well.
Some time ago, my hon. Friend issued an invitation to the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit his constituency. He received what might be described as a holding letter. It told my hon. Friend that certain developments were under way and, as a result, the Secretary of State might later consider visiting Derbyshire, North-East. I understand that it might be important that investigations should be made and completed before a visit takes place.
I have undertaken to visit my hon. Friend's constituency on 15 September. If the Minister is free on that day, I am sure that he would like to join me. I realise that he will not have his diary with him now. I am sure that my hon. Friend would make it an interesting and constructive day. Perhaps between us we could start to resolve some of the problems that my hon. Friend has been talking about for the past five years and beyond.
I think that it is generally accepted that reform of the planning system is long overdue. That forms part of the Labour party document which was published the other day, "In Trust for Tomorrow". That reform would be helpful to our efforts to resolve some of the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined. My hon. Friend talked about the presumption against opencast mining. That, too, forms part of "In Trust for Tomorrow" and would be a helpful policy.
It has taken five years for my hon. Friend to move from one debate to another. The problems that he referred to five years ago still face us. It is time that pollution generally, and especially in my hon. Friend's constituency, received a proper and co-ordinated response from the Government. If the Minister is not willing so to respond, the quicker we get a Government who are—that is a Labour Government —the better.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): As is customary, and I have no difficulty in doing so, I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on securing this debate. He has, by all accounts—past correspondence and contributions—been signally effective in stimulating debate on environmental issues of concern to his constituents. I prepared a speech in anticipation of some of the points that he would make, but if I do not deal with all the issues that he has raised, I will write to him with such further comments as are necessary.
I have noted the House's past interest in problems in Derbyshire and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with an opportunity to underline the Government's continued concern to protect the health of our people and the state of the environment in the country and particularly in Derbyshire, as highlighted in this debate.
Incidentally, I visited part of the national forest, which

covers areas of Derbyshire, and saw for myself some of the activities that have been going on as a result of the successful project there. The benefits of the Government's strategy can be seen in many parts of the country. I shall take this opportunity to describe examples of the successes in and around north-east Derbyshire, which are contributing to the environmental regeneration of the area.
At Leigh Environmental, Killamarsh, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has required a major refurbishment of the incineration plant, which is expected to come on line later this year, allowing the company to meet new plant standards in advance of the specified date. Improvements already carried out in response to improvement conditions, particularly those related to improved control of incinerator temperature and waste feed, have resulted in a substantial reduction in complaints from people living and working close to the site.
At Rhône-Poulenc, near Staveley, part of the site is already under HMIP control. A number of improvement conditions have already been complied with. New plant standards will be achieved progressively by 1998, resulting in the virtual elimination of benzene releases. The quality of releases to the River Rother from the site have improved since the issue of the authorisation. Other processes on site are due to be controlled by HMIP soon, resulting in further reductions in mercury releases into the environment. The company is pursuing pioneering development work on reed bed technology with the active encouragement of HMIP.
GKN Sheepbridge, near Chesterfield, has been the source of recent complaints, and agreement has been reached for improvements to be undertaken.
At Coalite Fuels, Bolsover, some 25 improvement conditions were imposed and all the short-term conditions have now been complied with. Discharges to the River Doe Lea have improved considerably following the installation of improved settling facilities called for by HMIP.
At Coalite Products, nine processes have come under HMIP control between October 1992 and June 1994. Many of the improvement conditions have already been completed, but a number more remain. Those improvement conditions are all aimed at the achievement of new plant standards within defined timescales.
A close liaison is being developed between HMIP, the National Rivers Authority and the waste regulatory authorities in north-east Derbyshire in advance of the environment agency, on which good progress is being made and about which we hope to hear more later this year. Meetings are being held and matters of mutual concern discussed and progressed in an integrated fashion. There is also close liaison between the regulators, including the local authorities and regional health authority. Joint meetings have been held and initiatives established to collect environmental data. The aim is to undertake a modelling exercise studying the interaction of pollutants from various sources in the area.
The regulatory authorities continue to attend liaison committees, which act as a forum for discussion and an information conduit between process operators and local pressure groups and members of the public.
In May, a new rivers ecosystems scheme for classifying water quality was introduced. It will enable statutory water quality objectives to be set for the first time for individual stretches of water. Objectives will normally be set to reflect improvements expected to result from existing obligations under EC and domestic legislation and from discretionary


spending. The NRA will shortly prepare proposals for a limited number of pilot catchments. There will be full consultation informally by the NRA and formally by the Secretary of State.
The River Doe Lea has been the subject of considerable attention by the NRA as it has sought to identify the problems and find solutions. I understand that the NRA is taking civil action against Coalite Chemicals to recover the costs of removing dioxins from the Doe Lea and Rother rivers. That civil action has taken some time to prepare because analysis of dioxin contamination is very complex, time consuming and costly.
The Government have funded derelict land reclamation in north-east Derbyshire for many years. In the three years to April 1994, 20 schemes were completed and 12 more were in the pipeline. Those will reclaim 380 hectares and produce 30 hectares of industrial land, about 1,000 to 1,500 jobs and up to £40 million of private sector investment. English Partnerships has a continuing commitment to reclamation work in the area and the Government are also providing £250,000 for the reclamation work of the Cresswell groundwork trust in the area.
An extensive and co-ordinated programme of environmental research and monitoring has already been carried out in north-east Derbyshire. Several reports detailing results of those studies have already been published, and the Government have given assurances that all the data will be made public. From the strategy that I have outlined, and from the examples that I have given, I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is reassured that all the agencies are committed to environmental protection and environmental regeneration, and to working closely with representatives of the local community.
Successful environmental protection is dependent on a co-ordinated approach by all parties, to ensure that the maximum benefit is achieved, commensurate with the state of knowledge, technology and costs to the product, process and the environment.

Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister feel that the developments that he has spoken about begin to match up to the full environmental survey that it is increasingly obvious is required in the area? Out of the bits and pieces that begin to develop, a story may be built up. We need to put together all the resources and sectors that I was speaking about, and to investigate the matter completely. Once we do that, we shall begin to know the answers that should be implemented. The Minister was also invited to join us in investigations into the area, because sometimes the equivalent of site visits are useful in helping to determine people's positions.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Like any politician or Minister, I would never say "never". We believe that much work is being done in the area, although obviously there is more yet to be done. As for the offer of a visit, I shall look at the diary and if I can accept that offer, I will.

Orders of the Day — Mesopotamia

Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), on his recent appointment. I know that, this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the new Minister, will be first class in his post.
It has been a long night. It was a long day yesterday for those who waited to discover what their change of portfolio might be. It was a long day on the Opposition Benches, waiting for announcements of shadow leaders and deputy shadow leaders. Our time span of difficulties here in this Palace of Westminster is just a tiny flicker in the time span of the suffering of the people on whose plight I wish to dwell this morning. I speak of the marsh arabs of the Mesopotamian marshes, and of the southern Iraqi Shi-ites, whose lives bordered the Mesopotamian marshlands until so very recently.
Thirty thousand square miles of antique waterways, with 10,000 square miles of that large expanse always under water, have been destroyed. Earlier this year, the Royal Air Force gave me to display, through the courtesy of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, now chairman of the Conservative party, some material showing the extent of the works that had caused that devastating damage. It was a tragic sight—enormous bulwarks, dams, the type of things that one can imagine would divert all the rivers of the United Kingdom.
Millions and millions of dollars have been poured into taking away the ancient Mesopotamian marshlands, the waters of Babylon, and creating an arid desert. There are those who claim—Saddam Hussein and his minions among them—that the consequential burning of the reed huts, the marshland villages, the rice farms, the date palms, all the historic agricultural produce of the marshlands, is all done for beneficial agricultural purposes.
I am chairman of the AMAR—assisting marsh arabs and refugees—appeal and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Iraq. In that capacity, I have had the opportunity to visit the area and to listen to the hundreds of thousands of victims whose homes have been destroyed, apparently for good, and whose lives have been wrecked irreparably.
I recall at the end of the war, when I was a small child, people, dreadfully full of guilt, asking, "Why didn't we listen? Why didn't we listen to the Jews when they said that they were being exterminated? Why didn't we listen when the concentration camps were being built and used?" Today, there are people who still refuse to listen to victims unless they see them on the television, go to Rwanda or experience at first hand the Bosnian tragedies. I am ashamed of those people. They refuse to listen to the plight of the victims. But it is the victims who can tell us of the gruesome tortures and the lifelong incarcerations in gaols below the surface of the ground in Baghdad and who, today, tell us of the degradation of the marshlands and the despoliation of that wonderful, unique habitat for wildlife, birds, animals and, most importantly, humans.
I am engaged in saving the survivors—there are 100,000 of them. Those survivors have fled into Iran. Some 30,000 of them are in Saudi Arabia, but it has not been possible to visit them. In Iran, we have a team of doctors, 60 medical people, 160 teachers and a number of people


who support and help us. Those people are working day and night. In conditions of acute danger, they have crept back into the marshlands where they are managing to save the lives—temporarily at least—of the remaining 50,000 or so marsh arabs who are coming ever closer to the border with Iran. I do not know whether they will come through because dams, and yet more dams, have been erected. Along the top of those dams, as I have seen, soldiers stand with machine guns and bombard the people as they attempt their final few yards to escape. Now, a road has been created along which armed vehicles are roaming along the border.
We care for those who can get out. Last August, when I was there, 11,000 people streamed through our medical clinic. The British Government have been helping us and I want to give warm thanks for the competence of the Overseas Development Administration to the Minister for Overseas Development and her senior staff—Mr. Ron White now has the Iraq desk in the ODA.
We have had consistent and wonderfully sensitive and thoughtful support from ECHO—the European Community humanitarian aid organisation that is based in Brussels. Mr. Gomez Reino, Mr. Donato Chiarini and Mr. Richard Lewartowski have been consistent and un-derstanding in their support. I was delighted when Dr. Rietweldt managed to visit the region and see a small portion of our work the other day.
Iran, a country more sinned against than sinning, has given us consistent and tremendous partnership support throughout, which still continues. A representative of the president came from Iran the other day and I was fortunate enough to introduce him to the Foreign Secretary. They were in complete agreement about humanitarian work. They were wonderful supporters from Iran.
Surely the time has come to start a proper dialogue with Iran on the cultural and, perhaps, the religious differences that have kept our countries apart for too long. I want that

dialogue to start under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. I am co-chairman of the UNESCO committee in the House of Commons and I believe that we might manage to begin a substantial, far-reaching dialogue that could begin to knit together those unravelled threads of cultural dialogue that have stretched back over so many centuries between two historic civilisations.
It is difficult to have any feelings other than disgust and disdain for Saddam Hussein, a man whose sole purpose seems to be to wipe out everybody who voices even the most modest disagreement for his unbearable and inhumane policies. That man is a genocidal monster. I am so grateful to the Government for all the support they have given to me and others in attempting to repair just a fraction of the damage that he has caused.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) knows that I disagree with her deeply on the substance of what she has said. However, I want to defend her right in raising a very important subject, placed at No. 9 in the Consolidated Fund debates, to have proper time for her speech and to have a proper ministerial reply— [Interruption.] I am on a point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, although it is an interesting point, it is not a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that, in my view, the hon. Gentleman did not raise a point of order. It might be a point of substance, but it is not a point of order.

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Population and Development (Conference)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Conway.]

8 am

Mr. Richard Ottaway: It comes as no surprise to find myself standing here this morning, but it comes as a great surprise and pleasure to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is on the Front Bench to reply to the debate.
Perhaps I should declare my interest. I have had the honour to be invited to be a member of the United Kingdom delegation at the international conference on population and development which is to take place in Cairo in September. I should add that I am doing so at my own expense.
The conference, which is to be held between 5 and 13 September, was created by the United Nations Economic and Social Council resolution in 1989. The secretary general of the conference is Dr. Nafis Sadik, the first-class executive director of the United Nations Population Fund. It is the fifth international conference on population. The first was held in Rome in 1954 and the second in Belgrade in 1965. The third was held in Bucharest in 1974, and 10 years later Mexico City set the population and family planning agenda for the next decade.
The publicity generated by the conference in Bucharest in 1974 brought population issues to world attention for the first time. Although the less-developed countries were backing the argument that development was the best contraceptive, many Governments launched their own family planning programmes following the discussions at the conference and the publication of "World Population Plan of Action". By the time of the next conference in Mexico in 1984, most developing countries were strongly supportive of family planning programmes to improve maternal and child health and to reduce population growth rates. The conference in Cairo aims to take the next step and to provide an action-oriented plan to increase worldwide commitment to population and development issues.
The conference is the result of growing recognition throughout the world of the interrelationships between population, environment, resources and development. It is also a recognition that the women's movement can no longer continue to grow parallel to and distinct from the movement towards sustainable development. It is now widely accepted that people are both the victims and the cause of environmental degradation of the planet. The conference will attempt to come to terms with the realisation that the process of sustainable development is made much more difficult, if not impossible, by the high rates of population growth which prevail when family planning services are not widely available and accepted.
The expression "Development is the best contraceptive" is fundamentally a lobbying expression by those countries that have been seeking more aid. It is, to a certain extent, true, but the first thing a country has to get is development. I am always attracted to the illustration of Indonesia as an example of where a planned, carefully-thought-out planning programme, backed by a full parallel programme of education, is able to produce a reduction in population as a pre-condition of economic growth.

Indonesia is now one of the Asian tigers and it is admitted by all in government that it would never have happened were it not for that initial family planning programme.
We all know how serious population growth can be and that it is the root cause of many of the world's problems. For example, the tragedy in Rwanda is primarily a territorial dispute brought about by overcrowding. In a revealing article in Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The Coming Anarchy", Robert D. Kaplan shows how scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism and disease are raoidly destroying the social fabric of our planet, with particular emphasis on Africa. He writes of the withering away of Governments, the rise of tribal and regional domains, the unchecked spread of disease and the growing pervasiveness of war. All that is seen in Rwanda, which I believe will be the first of many similar disputes.
In recent years, there has been a change in perspective in the developed world of how this issue is beginning to affect our planet. We saw it in Rio in 1992 and after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appeared at the Dispatch Box when a remarkable number of hon. Members rose to ask questions about population. The trend was continued at the G7 summits in Tokyo in 1993 and in Naples this year. But, above all, the USA is the country which has so shifted its position during the past decade.
Under the new Administration, President Clinton has set up a global committee to look at global issues—matters such as the environment, drugs and, in particular, population, which the head of the global action committee, Senator Tim Worth, earmarked as the most fundamental issue of all.
In addition, the United States has managed to separate the issue of abortion from family planning. Anyone who studies the subject for more than a few minutes will realise that family planning and abortion are separate matters, and abortion is the most ineffective and inefficient form of family planning that there could be. No one in their right mind could concede that it is a central part of any family planning programme. I regret that one group that does not seem to have changed its mind is the Pope and his advisers in the Vatican, but more of that in a moment. But it is now clear that attitudes around the world are changing, most notably in the scientific community.
An excellent post note issued by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published a few weeks ago referred to the science academies of the world meeting in New Delhi in September 1993 where Britain was represented by the Royal Society. They came to the overall conclusion that, while the relationships between human population, development and environment are complex and not fully understood, there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use.
Time does not permit me to deal with some quite excellent other conclusions, but in its final conclusion the meeting called on Governments and international decision makers to take incisive action now and adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale. That is not just a fringe group reaching that conclusion but the leading scientists of the world. I put it to the House that there can be no higher authority than that.
In response to that publication by the scientists of the world, the Royal Society held a seminar on 11 July at which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was the keynote speaker on behalf of the Government. She made quite the most significant speech


on this subject that Britain has seen. It marks a fundamental and welcome shift in the Government's position and attitude.
The Government launched the Overseas Development Administration's document entitled "Children by Choice, not Chance: Meeting the Challenge", a top-class, good-quality, informative and instructive document, in which my right hon. Friend said:
The challenge is there. We can ignore women's demands; we would then expect the world's population to triple to 17 billion within two hundred years. Or we can meet the demand for family planning and so ensure that the world's population stabilises at about double its present level.
My noble Friend's speech was full of excellent observations and comments, and it set out the fundamental position. I should have liked to quote much more, but time does not permit. My noble Friend also announced a huge increase in population activities funding—£100 million over the next two years. Can it be matched by other Governments in the European Union and around the world? It would be churlish to press the Government to go further, but I give notice that I shall be pressing in due course that that course of action be taken.
A number of outstanding points from PrepCom remain to be resolved—such as estimates of resource needs, a definition of family planning, fertility regulation, reproductive and sexual health, safe motherhood, unsafe abortion, the right of adolescents to privacy, confidentiality and so on. Those unresolved issues will be the subject of debate at the Cairo conference and I look forward to playing my own part in that.
At the heart is the tricky question of resources. My noble Friend Lady Chalker has said many times that she does not want to set targets, and she is probably right that the quality of programmes is more important than any target. However, we should not shy away from targets. We set them for the citizens charter, inflation, education and even the Child Support Agency. One should not totally exclude targets, because one does not have to hit the bull's eye on every occasion.
The resources question remains unresolved. As the Government have pledged an increase in funding, can my hon. Friend the Minister say whether the targets in the draft document are acceptable to the Government? If not, to what percentage of the budget does he expect the Government to commit themselves?
I urge my hon. Friend to address himself also to the question of how he might counter the Vatican's influence. The conference is subject to intense lobbying by the Vatican. Roman Catholic countries are trying to use the conference as an ideological platform, to have set out in black and white positions that have little to do with a global family health programme and more to do with an ideological standpoint. I remind my hon. Friend that my noble Friend Lady Chalker told the Royal Society:
I understand the position that the Catholic Church, for example, takes on what they describe as artificial methods of birth control. But by the same token, no single group should seek to prevent the Cairo declaration and Action Plan reflecting the majority view on the importance of everybody having access to adequate reproductive health care.
That is a substantial position, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stand by it. I will be interested to hear his comments.
Everybody's views on abortion are well known. At such a conference, one cannot have in the final declaration a statement that sets out a position on abortion that is contrary to national law. On one hand, we have those opposed to abortion; on the other, those who are—in one form or another—supportive of it. The two are irreconcilable. I hope that the draft declaration will incorporate wording that acknowledges differences of opinion.
Other issues that need to be addressed are adolescence and the definition of reproductive health. In all that, I urge my hon. Friend to work closely with the United States, which I believe can be a firm ally to us at the conference.
One of the interesting things has been the emergence of the role of non-governmental organisations in the preparation of the summit, several hundred of which have attended the PrepCom conference. I draw the attention of the House to the role played by two NGOs in particular: Population Concern, and Marie Stopes International. The latter pioneered the social marketing programme in certain parts of the world and recently introduced a first-class briefing pack, which I commend to my hon. Friend.
There is a slow shift of opinion among the NGOs towards recognising that the issue is very important. They have in the past tended to shy away from it. I was quite delighted yesterday to receive a briefing pack from Christian Aid in preparation for the debate. I am rather flattered that it should be focused on my Adjournment debate. It shows that there is growing interest in the issue.
I give my support to the proposed chairman of the conference, Mr. Fred Sai. I hope that he will be in the chair. He is well known to many hon. Members. He chaired the May committee in 1984. He is also a specialist in health, nutrition and family planning. I seek the assurance of my hon. Friend that the Government will support him.
I urge my hon. Friend to continue funding research into new and modern technological advances in contraception which might be appropriate to the 1990s, rather than what is now recognised as the slightly outdated contraceptive methods of the 1960s. I recognise the hard work that has been done on the conference by Overseas Development Administration officials, particularly Mr. David Nabarro. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Chalker and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who was the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs —a position now occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury—who, for the past couple of years, has spoken for the ODA in the House and taken a keen interest in the subject.
This is the best last chance that we have to try to stabilise the world population. If we can stabilise it at 10 billion by 2025, rather than the projected 15 billion, we will all have achieved something worth while.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottoway) on initiating the debate. He has a long-standing and informed interest in this important subject and I know that he has taken a keen interest in it since he has been a Member of the House, and long before.
The Government agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the international conference on population


which will be held in Cairo. We agree with him on the importance of getting the right result from it. Indeed, some of us—as he does, I am sure—see it as the most important international conference of the decade.
Our objectives for the conference are quite straightforward. We want all women and men to be able to access good-quality family planning and reproductive health services. By "all", we mean sexually active adolescents as well as adults, poor as well as rich, country dwellers as well as those in the towns and cities. We know that between 100 million and 200 million couples cannot access those services. We know that the services available for many millions of others are either of poor quality or far too expensive. We know that if services were more widely available, they would be used. We know, too, that when the services are used, fertility rates and population growth rates fall. We have seen that transformation occur in Bangladesh and Kenya, and have supported it with selective use of British aid funds.
We are seeing the transformation begin in other parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The requirement is quite simply to ensure that the services are there. That means that at Cairo we will encourage all Governments to commit themselves to offer family planning and reproductive health services. We want people to be able to access a choice of family planning methods, including natural family planning. We want to improve the safety of motherhood and childbirth, with better quality midwifery and obstetric services. We want women and men to have easy access to services that treat and prevent sexually transmitted infections; we want to help to reduce the consequences of genital mutilation and other forms of sexual violence.
Governments, of course, must decide what levels of service should be available for their people and what proportion of the national budget should be invested in them. They must decide how the services will be provided, using private-sector providers when they are more efficient and effective than the public sector. Local culture and sensitivity will determine the exact mix of services to be offered and the way in which they are made available.
We are against any coercion of people to use or not to use particular kinds of family planning service. We are against prescribing the services that can and cannot be offered. But we encourage Governments to take account of what happens when people cannot have access to family planning services—of the 200,000 women who die each year as a result of unsafe abortions; of the hundreds of thousands of children born to parents who do not want them and often cannot afford to clothe and feed them; and of the inevitable disruption of development programmes and, indeed, of the entire environment that results from rapid population growth.
It would be extraordinary if the Cairo conference were not a success. Most Governments, particularly those of developing countries, have adopted population policies and are busy implementing them. In 1965, only nine developing countries had policies to promote family planning and reduce their rates of population growth. More and more couples now choose when to have children, and practise family planning—an estimated 10 per cent. did so in 1960; 50 per cent. do so now. Considerable strides have been made in recent years. Those who keep us informed of what is happening in the wider world—the nongovernmental organisation and advocacy groups, with which my hon. Friend is so closely associated—seem to

agree that action taken now will determine whether the world's population stabilises at 12 billion or 18 billion during the first century of the next millennium.
We are working with the United Nations and others to ensure that the conference is a success. Dr. Nafis Sadik, head of the UN Population Fund and secretary general of the conference, has tirelessly travelled the world preparing the ground for success. She has spoken to the leaders of developing countries, academic groups and scientists, donor organisations and colleagues in the United Nations system. She is ably supported by Dr. Fred Sai, a highly experienced and committed Ghanaian, who will preside over the conference and in whom we have total confidence.
The Egyptian Government are providing excellent facilities for the 20,000 or so participants, many of whom will be representing non-governmental organisations and advocacy groups. Most delegations will be headed by Ministers; I am delighted to say that ours will be ably led by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about her excellent speech the other day on "Children by Choice, not Chance". I am also delighted that my hon. Friend himself will be joining the group of experienced officials and non-governmental organisation representatives who will be on our delegation.
My hon. Friend asked specifically about targets. The targets in the draft Cairo plan of action are acceptable to us and we will apply ODA funds to help recipient Governments to adapt them to their circumstances and achieve those targets. We are completely committed to that. Indeed, our commitment to the subject generally has been well illustrated by the fact that the amount that we have spent directly on population and reproductive health has increased each year since 1991 and more than doubled between 1986 and 1993. At present, we are spending just over £31 million. Further funds go towards education projects specifically aimed at women and other poverty-focused programmes that will create a climate within which people can adopt family planning measures.
The UN has arranged preparatory meetings that have been well attended by delegations from all over the world. The discussion was intense. The British delegation, as a member of the European Union, played a major part. We have helped to shape the draft plan of action for the Cairo conference and we continue to work behind the scenes, strengthening the common European Union line and negotiating with care to ensure that contentious passages will be acceptable to the vast majority of delegates. The action plan, full of realistic and sensible objectives, is one of which we can be proud, which we can support and which we expect to be agreed, with acclamation, in Cairo.
We have discussed with UNFPA—the United Nations Population Fund—the World bank and other agencies mechanisms to follow up the conference. We propose an enhanced role for the UNFPA, working in co-ordination with other major groups, and we confidently expect our proposals to be accepted.
There are a few countries whose delegations have expressed fundamental objections to improving access to family planning and reproductive health services. I understand that they are concerned about the increased availability of what they described as artificial methods of birth control. They are concerned that there will be easier availability of facilities for induced abortion. They fear that such actions will encourage promiscuity and, in the longer term, undermine the sanctity of the family.
That is not new. At the 1974 Bucharest conference and in 1984 in Mexico, a proportion of the delegations took that line. Compared with then, the number of dissenting voices has reduced dramatically. The 12 or so delegations that do not take the majority line are expressing their concerns in strident language, accusing the majority of an inhuman and immoral stance. They are entitled to their view, but they should recognise that it is a minority view and one which is unlikely to impede the majority world view from prevailing. We are in dialogue with the minority group. We should prefer to see a declaration that is adopted unanimously or at least by a broad consensus. We should not wish to see voting on the plan of action, as that would be seen as divisive.
During the forthcoming parliamentary recess, my officials aid representatives of non-governmental organisations will be working hard with their European colleagues to ensure that the meeting in Cairo will be a success and will herald intensified action in population and reproductive health. They will go to Cairo in the knowledge that Britain has played a leading role in advocacy and action in this important area. They will go knowing that there is strong support for their work from both sides of the House. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South will be joining them and I look forward to hearing his report when we return in the autumn. We wish him and the conference success, because the price of failure will be measured not by us but by future generations. We must succeed for their sake.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eight o'clock.